"R  AvT^vT 


H^Z 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Open  Knowledge  Commons 


http://www.archive.org/details/collectiondisposOOheri 


COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL 


OF 


MUNICIPAL  KEFUSE 


COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL 

OF 

MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


BY 

RUDOLPH   HERING,  D.Sc. 

NEW    YORK   CITY 

Past  President  of  American  Public  Health  Association  and  of  Engineers 
Club  of  Philadelphia;  Past  Vice-President  of  American  Society  of 
Civil  Engineers.   Member  of  American  Institute  of  Consulting 
Engineers ;   American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engi- 
neers; Institution  of  Civil  Engineers,  London; 
Engineering  Institute  of  Canada;  West- 
ern Society  of  Engineers,  etc. 


SAMUEL  A.   GREELEY 

CHICAGO,  ILL. 

Member   of  American  Public   Health   Association,   American   Society   of 
Civil  Engineers,  Western  Society  of  Engineers,  American  Asso- 
ciation  of  Engineers,   American    Water   Works   Asso- 
ciation,   Illinois   Society   of   Engineers,    etc. 


First   Edition 
Third  Impression 


McGRAW-HILL  BOOK  COMPANY,  Inc. 

NEW  YORK:    370    SEVENTH    AVENUE 

LONDON:  6  &  8  BOUVERIE  ST.,  E.  C.  4 

1921 


COPYEIGHT    1921,    BY    THE 

McGRAW-HILL  BOOK  COMPANY,  Inc. 


PRINTED   IN   THE    UNITED   STATES    OF  AMERICA 


PREFACE 


The  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  record  and  discuss  the  various 
experiences  in  the  disposition  of  municipal  refuse.  Other  books  have 
been  written  on  this  subject,  or  on  parts  of  it,  as  in  the  United  States 
by  Morse,  by  Parsons,  and  by  Venable;  and  in  England  by  Maxwell 
and  by  Goodrich;  but  there  seemed  to  be  room  for  a  more  compre- 
hensive survey  of  the  subject  in  the  light  of  later  experiences.  There 
also  seemed  to  be  a  need  for  stating  more  fully  than  done  heretofore 
the  fundamental  principles  relating  to  house  treatment,  collection, 
and  final  disposal.  Such  statements  may  be  helpful,  particularly  as 
private  interests  sometimes  compete  with  public  interests,  and  as  both 
should  be  identical  when  considering  the  general  benefits  to  the 
community. 

The  present  book  has  been  in  hand  for  the  last  ten  years,  at 
intervals  between  other  engineering  work,  and  has  required  more  labor, 
correspondence,  inspection,  inquiry,  and  consideration  than  was 
anticipated.  This  was  due  mainly  to  the  desire  of  the  au-hors  to 
offer,  not  only  a  record  of  general  principles,  but  also  of  present 
practice  resulting  from  experience,  so  that  it  might  be  helpful  to  both 
designing  and  operating  engineers,  in  securing  efficiency  and  economy 
in  a  branch  of  public  service  which  in  America  is  still  undergoing 
development,  principally  in  methods  of  disposal. 

The  information  presented  has  been  verified  as  far  as  practicable. 
Although  many  data  were  estimated,  or  averaged,  and  some  are 
based  only  on  judgment,  it  is  hoped  that  their  inclusion  may  still 
be  of  service,  and  be  the  means  of  encouraging  the  collection  and 
recording  of  more  accurate  statistics.  Some  of  the  information  in 
city  reports  has  little  meaning  to  outsiders,  mainly  because  it  is  not 
reduced  to  unit  measures,  such  as  quantities  per  capita  per  annum, 
etc.,  and  to  those  which  are  independent  of  wages,  population,  and 
variable  bases.  Therefore,  such  reports  do  not  allow  of  comparison 
with  data  reported  from  other  cities,  and  do  not  show  the  relative 
effects  of  local  conditions.     In  some  cases  we  have  added  reductions 


VI  PREFACE 

to  unit  terms,  and  in  others  the  reader  may  himself  be  able  to  make 
them  for  special  cases. 

Some  of  the  information  was  selected  chiefly  for  illustration,  and 
was  not  intended  to  be  applicable  at  present.  Occasionally,  also,  the 
data  for  certain  cities  are  apparently  inconsistent,  but  the  authorities, 
where  available,  have  been  cited,  as  it  was  thought  that  this  would 
indicate  the  importance  of  reporting  more  completely  the  conditions 
affecting  the  given  figures,  and  thereby  indicate  also  the  variations 
in  the  treatment  which  may  occur  under  different  local  conditions  of 
time  and  place. 

To  have  collated  all  detailed  information  concerning  existing 
works  that  might  have  been  of  interest  was  not  attempted.  Yet, 
enough  has  been  given,  it  is  hoped,  to  enable  the  reader  or  the  designer 
of  any  special  work  to  obtain  general  ideas,  make  better  comparisons, 
and  form  safe  general  opinions  on  the  subject.  If  more  detailed 
information  is  desired  for  a  specific  purpose,  this  can  probably  be  best 
obtained  by  direct  correspondence  with  the  respective  city  officials. 

The  data  in  the  book  have  been  selected  partly  from  original 
sources,  and  partly  from  publications,  articles,  and  reports.  In 
numerous  tables  the  figures  for  some  of  the  years  have  been  omitted, 
partly  because  they  were  not  readily  available,  and  partly  to  reduce 
space.  Generally,  the  years  of  most  value  in  assisting  judgment  as 
to  quantities  and  cost  have  been  selected,  as,  for  instance,  just  before, 
during,  and  after  the  War. 

Some  of  the  tabular  matter  has  been  given  as  it  was  received, 
and  some  has  been  rearranged,  condensed,  and  extended,  for  greater 
usefulness. 

Lack  of  consistency  in  the  use  of  terms  is  sometimes  apparent 
in  quotations  from  different  authors. 

In  a  few  instances,  and  for  greater  convenience  of  reference  and 
use,  there  are  some  slight  repetitions  in  the  text.  On  the  other  hand, 
to  avoid  repetition,  general  historical  information  is  given  only  in  the 
introduction,  and  that  relating  chiefly  to  special  developments  is 
included  only  in  the  respective  chapters. 

In  order  to  make  the  cost  data  as  useful  as  possible,  the  years 
(approximately)  to  which  they  are  applicable  have  been  given. 
Most  of  them  relate  to  conditions  before  the  War.  To  use  these  with 
safety,  it  will  be  necessary  to  obtain  for  each  locality  the  percentage 
of  increase  in  the  wages,  and  in  the  cost  of  materials,  and  to  apply 
the  corrections  to  the  pre-war  prices. 

In  order  to  facilitate  the  preparation  of  specifications  for  the 
letting  of  contracts,  there  have  been  added  some  quotations  and 
abstracts  from  specifications  which  have  stood  the  test  of  experience. 


PREFACE  vii 

and  some  suggestions  which  may  be  of  further  service,  but  these  are 
limited  to  the  most  important  items.  Conditions  of  locality  vary 
so  greatly  that  no  single  form  will  suit  all.  From  what  is  herein 
stated,  the  local  engineer  can  readily  supplement  the  engineering 
parts  and  the  local  attorney  draw  up  the  legal  parts. 

The  technical  terms  that  apply  specially  to  the  subject  of  municipal 
refuse  and  have  been  used  by  us  are  defined  in  the  text.  A  few 
available  sample  cards  of  rules  and  regulations  for  house  treatment 
have  been  given.  Undoubtedly  there  are  sets  of  regulations  in  other 
cities  that  would  be  equally  helpful  guides. 

The  authors  desire  to  express  their  acknowledgments  and  give 
credit  and  thanks  to  the  municipal  officers,  city  engineers,  firms, 
personal  friends,  and  others,  who  had  special  experience  in  the 
branches  of  this  subject  and  provided  much  of  the  information 
embodied  in  this  book.  Among  those  to  whom  it  is  desired  to  give 
special  mention  are  the  following: 

For  a  number  of  illustrations  we  are  indebted  to  various  cities, 
firms,  and  individuals:  to  Mr.  H.  de  B.  Parsons,  who  kindly  loaned 
some  electrotypes;  and  to  Mr.  W.  F.  Morse,  and  Mr.  W.  F.  Goodrich, 
for  published  illustrations  of  earlier  incinerators.  Mr.  W.  W. 
DeBerard  and  Mr.  John  Primrose  kindly  read  over  parts  of  the  original 
manuscript. 

We  are  also  indebted  for  information  obtained  from  numerous 
city  reports  and  from  the  Engineering  Press  for  various  descriptions 
and  illustrations  relating  to  present-day  practice,  and  to  manu- 
factures and  others;  particularly  to  J.  T.  Fetherston,  E.  H.  Foster, 
and  R.  W.  Parlin,  Members,  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers, 
and  also  Professor  Frederic  Bonnet,  Jr.,  who  has  supplied  suggestions 
and  specific  information.  Lastly,  we  desire  to  mention  the  assistance 
we  have  received  from  time  to  time  from  members  of  Mr.  Greeley's 
staff:  Messrs.  Robert  A.  AUton,  R.  S.  Rankin,  W.  T.  McClenahan, 
and  Wm.  E.  Stanley,  and  in  particular  the  valuable  services  of  Mr. 
T.  J.  McMinn,  past  Assistant  Secretary,  American  Society  of  Civil 
Engineers,  in  revising  the  manuscript  and  the  tabular  matter,  in 
preparing  the  index,  and  assisting  in  the  editorial  work.  We  also 
desire  to  thank  the  publishers  for  the  creditable  manner  in  which 
they  have  issued  the  book,  so  as  to  facilitate  its  use. 

Rudolph  Hering, 

Samuel  A.  Greeley. 
New  York  and  Chicago, 
December,  1920. 


CONTENTS 


PAOE 

Preface v 

Introduction 1 

Chapter  I. — Refuse  Materials 7 

A.  Definitions 7 

B.  Classification 10 

C.  Special  Investigations 12 

D.  Quantities  and  theu*  Variations 27 

E.  Proportions  of  Constituent  Materials _ 42 

F.  Unit  Weights " 44 

G. .    Composition 47 

H.     European  and  Other  Foreign  Data 69 

I.     Summary 80 

Chapter  II. — House  Treatment 81 

A.  Degree  of  Separation 82 

B.  Receptacles 84 

C.  Flies 89 

D.  Special  Treatments 89 

E.  Improper  Conditions,  and  Complaints 91 

F.  Essentials  of  Treatment 91 

G.  Education  of  House  Occupants 96 

H.     Summary  and  Conclusions 97 

I.     Samples  of  Cards  and  Rules 97 

Chapter  III. — Collection 104 

A.  Reports  and  Early  Conclusions 104 

B.  Methods  of  Collection 108 

C.  Relation  of  Collection  to  House  Treatment  and  Final  Disposal .  109 

D.  General  Conditions 110 

E.  Detailed  Conditions  and  Requirements 112 

F.  Equipment 127 

G.  Organization 150 

H.     Operation 152 

I.     Technical  Boards 160 

J.     European  Data 160 

K.     Specifications 162 

L.     Summary  and  Conclusions 164 

ix 


X  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Chapter  IV. — Supplemental  Transportation 166 

A.  Purpose 166 

B.  Available  Means  and  Methods.  .  .  .  .■ 169 

C.  Transfer  and  Loading  Stations 187 

D.  European  Data 193 

E.  Summary  and  Conclusions 193 

Chapter  V. — Estimating  the  Cost  of  Collection  and  Transpor- 
tation     195 

A.  Elements 195 

B.  Loading 196 

C.  Hauling 197 

D.  Transfer  Stations 198 

E.  Transportation 198 

F.  Actual  Costs  Available 205 

G.  Private  Collection  Costs 222 

H.     Improved  Records  Desirable 222 

I.     Summary  and  Conclusions 222 

Appendix:  Standard  Forms  for  Statistics  of  Municipal  Refuse 231 

Chapter  VI. — Outline  of  Methods  of  Final  Disposal 236 

A.  Natural  Methods 237 

B.  Artificial  Methods 238 

Chapter  VII. — Depositing  in  Water  and  on  Land 240 

A.  Dumping  into  Large  Bodies  of  Water 241 

B.  Dumping  on  Land 243 

C.  Land-fiU 248 

D.  Plowing  into  the  Soil 252 

E.  Burial 252 

F.  Summary  and  Conclusions 257 

Chapter  VIII. — Feeding  Garbage  to  Hogs 258 

A.  Fundamental  Considerations 260 

B.  Results  in  Practice 265 

C.  Food  Administration  Conference 278 

D.  Number  of  Hogs  Required 282 

E.  Character  of  Pork 282 

F.  Construction  and  Operation 282 

G.  Advantages  and  Disadvantages 286 

H.     Specifications 287 

I.     Summary  and  Conclusions 288 

Chapter  IX. — Sorting  Rubbish 290 

A.  Design  and  Construction 291 

B.  Recoverable  Materials 295 

C.  Results  in  Practice 299 

D.  Sanitary  Features 308 

E.  Summary  and  Conclusions 310 


CONTENTS 


XI 


PAGE 

Chapter  X. — Incineration  of  Refuse 311 

A.  Fundamental  Considerations 314 

B.  Plant  Location 317 

C.  Design  and  Construction 321 

D.  Tests 369 

E.  By-products 390 

F.  Plants  Built  and  Results  Obtained 397 

G.  Advantages  and  Disadvantages 432 

H.  Example  of  Computing  the  Calorific   Value   of   the   Various 

Classes  of  Refuse 433 

I.     Specifications  for  Construction 434 

J.     Summary  and  Conclusions 442 

Chapter  XI. — Reduction  of  Garbage 444 

A.  Fundamental  Considerations 445 

B.  Plant  Location i 447 

C.  Processes 44g 

D.  Products 455 

E.  Design  and  Construction 465 

F.  Operation 477 

G.  Plants  Built  and  Results  Obtained 478 

H.     Advantages  and  Disadvantages 501 

I.     Contracts  and  Specifications 502 

J.     Summary  and  Conclusions 510 

Chapter  XII. — Estimating  Costs  of  Final  Disposal. 512 

A.  Division  of  Expenses 513 

B.  Engineering  and  Legal 514 

C.  Construction ; 51f 

D.  Operation 527 

E.  Valuations 541 

F.  Preliminary  Estimates 545 

G.  European  Data 550 

H.     Summary  and  Conclusions 555 

Chapter  XIII. — Selecting  the  Method  of  Disposal 557 

A.  Influence  of  Local  Conditions 557 

B.  Other  Controlling  Elements 558 

C.  Actual  Reports 559 

D.  Data  Required 563 

E.  Conclusions 564 

Chapter  XIV. — Stable  Refuse 568 

A.  Materials 568 

B.  Collection 576 

C.  Final  Disposal 578 

D.  Results  in  Practice 581 

E.  Summary  and  Conclusions 584 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Chapter  XV. — Stbeet  Refuse 586 

A.     Materials 587 

B      Collection 597 

C.  Final  Disposal 602 

D.  Summary  and  Conclusions 604 

Chapter  XVI.— Night-soil  and  Dead  Animals 606 

A.  Night-soH 606 

B.  Dead  Animals 612 

C.  Summary  and  Conclusions 617 

Chapter  XVII. — Procedure  in  Small  Towns  and  Villages 618 

A.  Typical  Conditions 618 

B.  State  Laws 619 

C.  Collection  and  Disposal 620 

D.  House  Treatment  and  Ordinances 625 

E.  Results  in  Practice 628 

F.  Summary  and  Conclusions 632 

Index , 635 


COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL 
OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


INTRODUCTION 

As  THE  human  race  evolved,  and  nomadic  tribes  settled  down  in 
permanent  abodes  to  form  communities,  the  disposition  of  their  rejected 
materials  began  to  require  special  attention.  It  is  recorded  that  Moses 
enjoined  his  people  to  carry  all  offensive  and  unclean  matter  outside  of  the 
camp  and  burn  it.  Garbage  was  thrown  out  on  the  fields,  as  still  done 
in  parts  of  Asia  to-day,  to  be  eaten  bj^  dogs  or  buzzards.  All  non- 
decomposable  and  inoffensive  waste  was  usuaU}^  throwm  on  low  areas  or  on 
the  roads.  Some  of  the  streets  in  the  oldest  European  cities  have  been 
gradually  raised  several  feet  by.  the  rubbish  dumped  on  them  during 
centuries. 

The  rapid  growth  of  modern  cities,  particularly  since  the  develop- 
ment of  sanitary  science  had  mastered  the  problems  of  water  supply  and 
sewerage,  brought  the  refuse  removal  problem  also  into  prominence. 
England  led  this  progressive  movement  in  starting  works  for  such 
removal  and  disposal  in  its  cities  and  towns.  Germany  followed,  and 
advanced  the  subject  in  essential  directions  by  its  proverbial  thorough- 
ness in  both  theory  and  practice.  France  also  followed  the  advance, 
and  was  interested  chiefly  in  utilizing  the  valuable  parts  of  the  refuse. 

America  then  took  up  the  above  experiences  and,  while  trying  most 
of  the  European  methods,  developed  others,  made  possible  by  the  greater 
wastefulness  of  its  people  and  consequently  by  a  greater  per  capita 
production  of  salable  refuse. 

The  older  cities  of  Europe  were  obliged  to  solve  these  problems 
satisfactorily  before  they  had  seriously  presented  themselves  in  America. 
Europe  therefore  has  gained  much  experience,  a  high  degree  of  efficiency 
and  economy,  and  has  arrived  at  conclusions  which  are  helpful  also  to 
us.  The  authors,  therefore,  inspected  many  European  works,  and  studied 
municipal  reports  and  publications.  To  a  much  greater  extent,  however, 
they  have  done  this  in  America.  It  is  therefore  hoped  that  the  presen- 
tation of  the  combined  experiences  gained  on  both  continents  may  assist 
American  municipalities  in  reaching  the  best  solutions. 


2         COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Although  our  conditions  differ  in  many  respects  from  those  common 
in  Europe,  we  must,  nevertheless,  be  aware  of  the  fact  that  some  European 
cities  have  passed  through  conditions  similar  to  some  of  ours,  and  in 
conducting  municipal  affairs  have  at  present  arrived  at  solutions  which 
in  time  we  may  also  find  best  to  adopt,  although  as  yet  we  may  only 
be  beginning  to  approach  them. 

The  recent  development  in  America  started  in  1887,  by  the  American 
Public  Health  Association,  with  the  appointment  of  a  Committee  on 
Garbage  Disposal,  of  which  Dr.  Kilvington  was  Chairman.  In  1888, 
this  Committee  reported  on  the  "Destruction  of  Organic  Refuse  by 
Fire."  In  1889,  a  report  was  presented  favoring  both  reduction  and 
incineration  as  the  promising  methods  of  future  garbage  disposal.  In 
1894,  Rudolph  Hering  was  appointed  Chairman,  elaborate  statistics 
were  collected  from  more  than  a  hundred  cities,  and  in  1897  a  report 
was  made  on  the  collection  and  disposal  of  waste  matter  in  many  of 
those  cities,  with  general  conclusions  regarding  the  entire  problem. 
A  great  diversity  of  opinion  was  observed  regarding  the  proper  methods 
to  be  pursued.  The  Committee  also  studied  the  English  experiences 
and  the  very  complete,  instructive,  and  valuable  experiments  just  then 
being  conducted  in  Hamburg  and  Berlin,  and  presented  conclusions 
which  endeavored  to  place  the  whole  subject  on  a  scientific  foundation. 

The  sanitary  aspect  was  given  the  first  and  the  financial  aspect  the 
second  place  in  all  recommendations.  It  was  pointed  out  that  a  proper 
solution  for  any  city  or  town  would  require  a  knowledge  of  the  quantity, 
character,  and  composition  of  the  refuse,  and  also  of  the  local  conditions 
controlling  the  several  parts  of  the  problem. 

As  to  the  methods  of  final  disposal,  the  report  recommended,  as  com- 
plying best  with  the  sanitary  requirements  under  the  different  local  con- 
ditions in  the  United  States,  the  following:  "  Feeding  to  swine,  dumping 
on  land  or  into  large  volumes  of  flowing  water,  plowing  into  soil,  extracting 
grease,  or  cremating  the  organic  matter."  As  to  the  method  to  be 
preferred  for  a  given  city,  it  was  recommended  that  from  among  these 
sanitary  methods,  that  one  should  be  selected  which  could  be  carried 
out  at  the  least  expense,  when  considering  jointly  the  costs  of  both 
construction  and  operation. 

In  1901  Mr.  M.  N.  Baker*  stated: 

"In  no  branch  of  mimicipal  service  has  so  little  progress  been  made  in 
the  United  States  as  in  the  disposal  of  garbage.  Why  do  such  conditions 
exist?  First,  because  the  sanitary  collection  and  disposal  is  appreciated 
neither  by  the  general  public  nor  the  city  officials;  second,  because  it  is 
seldom  recognized  that  the  problems  incident  to  final  disposal  are  largely 
engineering  in  character  and  therefore  should  be  entrusted  to  engineers." 

*  "  The  Unsatisfactory  Condition  of  Garbage  Disposal  in  the  United  States."  Paper 
read  before  the  League  of  American  Municipalities,  1901. 


INTRODUCTION  3 

Since  then  much  progress  has  been  made,  not  only  in  a  better  appre- 
ciation of  the  subject,  but  also  in  collating  data  of  experience.  First,  as 
regards  quantity,  we  have  gained  considerable  knowledge  from  records 
compiled,  even  when  approximate,  so  that  the  selection  of  more  rational 
and  economical  means  of  collection  and  disposal  have  gradually  become 
practicable.  Secondly,  as  regards  quality,  we  have  gained  some  knowl- 
edge of  the  moisture,  grease,  fertilizing  and  combustible  matter,  and  also 
of  recoverable  and  salable  materials,  contained  in  refu.se.  Thirdly,  we 
have  secured  information  regarding  the  actual  practice  and  cost  of  col- 
lecting the  refuse  and  of  disposing  of  it  in  practicable  ways. 

The  fundamental  parts  of  the  problem  have  also  been  gradually 
developed,  particularly  by  realizing  the  necessity  of  a  more  intimate 
co-operation  of  the  householder  with  the  collection  part  of  the  problem. 
House  treatment,  therefore,  has  been  given  greater  attention  than 
heretofore. 

All  needed  information  leading  to  a  complete  knowledge  of  these 
subjects  is  not  yet  available,  and  particularly  has  the  recent  economical 
disturbance,  caused  by  the  War,  affected  not  only  the  cost,  but  also  the 
quantities  and  qualities  of  the  waste  materials  themselves,  so  that  at 
present  the  conclusions  reached  may  sometimes  dilTer  from  those  that 
were  found  to  be  best  just  before  the  War.  Therefore,  some  difficulties 
in  reaching  the  best  solutions  may  have  again  temporarily  increased, 
although  it  is  hoped  they  will  soon  be  removed  by  the  accumulation  of 
more  detailed  records  of  experience. 

As  the  problems  are  largely  technical,  the  next  advance  can  be 
accomplished  by  establishing  the  best  practicable  organizations,  syste- 
matizing the  entire  work  under  competent  engineering  advice  and 
management,  with  the  intimate  co-operation  of  the  health  officers, 
and,  under  carefully .  drawn  ordinances,  regulating  such  community 
work. 

A  further  advance  can  be  made  by  obtaining  more  thorough  records 
for  a  comparison  between  contract  and  permanent  city  force  work, 
from  the  standpoints  of  efficiency  and  cost.  The  advantages  of  city 
force  work  in  the  collection  service  are  annually  becoming  more  and 
more  apparent,  as  city  management  becomes  better,  but  there  yet 
remain  some  exceptions  to  this  conclusion,  particularly  in  smaller 
towns.  The  advantages  of  contract  work  still  exist  as  to  some  of  the 
disposal  plants,  especially  in  those  which  require  manufacturing  and 
business  organizations.  Experience,  more  knowledge,  and  training  of 
permanent  city  forces  have  demonstrated  in  Europe  that  operation  by 
the  city  is  more  desirable  for  both  branches  of  the  work;  and  a  con- 
tinuation of  records  in  American  cities  may  eventually  show  the  same 
tendency.     This  is  due  to  the  great  complexity  of  the  work,  which,  for 


4         COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

the  best  results,  requires  a  continual  adjustment  to  varying  details. 
It  is  further  due  to  the  fact,  recognized  in  Europe  more  than  here,  that 
whatever  money  benefits  may  accrue  from  municipal  work  should  go 
to  the  community,  to  encourage  its  own  officers  and  men,  rather  than 
to  contracting  individuals  and  firms. 

The  rapid  progress  made  within  the  last  fifteen  years  in  the  art  of 
refuse  handling  leads  to  the  belief  that  the  characteristics  of  the  different 
methods  are  now  more  clearly  understood,  and  that  the  details  can  be 
handled  more  effectively,  than  in  former  years.  Therefore,  the  intro- 
duction of  still  better  adjustments  in  the  details  of  the  methods  of  collec- 
tion and  disposal  of  municipal  refuse  now  seems  assured.  This  can  be 
accomplished  only  by  having  officials  better  informed  and  trained,  and 
this  will  secure  better  sanitation  at  less  cost.  In  the  light  of  more 
investigations  and  experience,  the  uncertainties  are  being  reduced,  some 
of  the  older  usages  are  disappearing,  and  more  efficient  and  economical 
ones  are  taking  their  places. 

As  the  local  conditions  of  a  city  sometimes  vary  greatly,  and  there- 
fore require  different  methods  and  treatment,  it  is  now  recognized  that 
a  decision  as  to  the  proper  recommendations  for  the  best  solutions  of 
the  problem  in  a  city  must  rest  on  the  result  of  a  prior  thorough  inquiry 
into  all  controlling  conditions. 

It  is  also  recognized  that  we  should  divide  the  subject  into  three 
parts:  House  treatment,  collection,  and  disposal,  and  that  the  details 
of  each  are  dependent  on  those  of  the  others.  We  shall  therefore  first 
discuss  the  ways  of  preparing  at  the  house  the  different  kinds  of  refuse 
for  collection,  secondly,  the  ways  of  collecting,  transporting,  and  deliver- 
ing them  to  the  points  of  disposal,  and  thirdly,  the  various  means  for 
their  sanitary  disposition,  whether  separately  or  combined. 

The  house  treatment  rests  entirely  with  the  producer  of  the  refuse. 
Therefore,  it  is  necessary  for  the  community  to  issue  specific  rules  and 
regulations,  which  will  guide  not  only  the  producer  but  also  the  collector 
in  their  respective  duties  at  the  house,  and  protect  them  against  troubles 
that  are  otherwise  apt  to  arise. 

The  collection  of  public  refuse  is  a  pubhc  utility.  It  is  quite  distinct 
and  separate  from  house  treatment  and  final  disposal,  although  it  forms 
with  them  an  organic  whole.  Under  some  conditions  the  special  organ- 
ization managing  it  may  be  a  separate  one.  Although  the  collection  is 
now  often  made  under  contract,  chiefly  in  small  communities,  it  will  in 
the  future  generally  be  done  more  satisfactorily  by  the  city's  own  forces, 
because  of  the  greater  ease  in  adjusting  details  at  once  to  the  best  sanitary 
requirements  for  each  special  case  as  it  occurs. 

The  control  and  management  of  the  final  disposal  of  the  refuse  in 
our  municipalities  at  the  present  time,  particularly  when  it  requires  a 


INTRODUCTION  5 

business  organization,  may  in  some  cases  be  conducted  under  contract 
as  a  private  affair,  as  well  as,  and  occasionally  even  better  than,  by 
municipal  labor,  provided  always  that  it  secures  equally  satisfactory 
sanitation  at  a  less  cost. 

The  recent  war  conditions  have  materially  unsettled  the  rates  of 
wages,  and  therefore  the  costs  of  both  labor  and  materials.  As  long  as 
such  financial  uncertainties  exist,  and  in  order  at  all  times  to  maintain  a 
high  sanitary  standard,  safety  seems  to  lie  at  present  on  the  side  of 
an  efficient  municipal  management  and  operation  of  disposal  works, 
where  expenditures  may  be  at  once  adjusted  to  suddenly  arising  or 
extraordinary  conditions. 

The  great  changes  in  prices,  and  the  uncertainties  as  to  their  future 
stability,  have  made  it  difficult  to  give  satisfactory  statements  of  costs, 
necessary  as  guides  in  estimating  the  cost  of  projected  works.  We  have 
therefore  concluded  to  record  cost  items  before,  during,  and  after  the 
War,  as  far  as  this  was  practicable.  By  thus  comparing  the  prices  for 
different  years  and  adjusting  them  to  local  experiences  and  to  the  prices 
prevailing  at  the  present  time,  it  is  hoped  that  the  repeated  statements 
may  be  of  use. 

Never  before,  as  during  the  last  years,  has  attention  been  called  so 
strongly  to  the  desirability  of  having  a  more  rational  basis  than  only 
the  wages  of  men  for  estimating  the  cost  of  work  and  materials.  Not 
only  do  daily  wages  fluctuate  but  also  the  number  of  hours  constituting 
a  working  day  to  which  they  apply.  In  times  of  such  economic  dis- 
turbances it  is  not  possible  to  foretell  the  cost  as  safely  as  under  normal 
conditions,  unless  we  have  a  better  measure  of  actual  work  done.  Such 
measures  are  those  which  indicate,  irrespective  of  wages,  the  efficiency 
of  labor  in  both  time  and  work  elements. 

We  are  quite  accustomed  to  the  units  of  foot-pounds  per  minute, 
horse-powers  per  hour,  and  ton-miles  per  hour.  Such  terms  are  inde- 
pendent of  wages,  and  have  been  applied  either  to  animals  or  engines, 
but  seldom  to  men.  If  we  had  records  also  of  all  the  various  kinds  of  work 
which  men,  skilled  and  unskilled,  can  do  in  one  hour,  we  would  then 
have  a  measure  of  actual  work  pe  formed,  which  would  need  only  to  be 
multiplied  by  the  hourly  wage  rate,  at  the  time  of  bidding  or  esti- 
mating, in  order  to  get  a  rational  figure  for  the  cost. 

In  Europe  this  method  of  estimating  cost  is  not  uncommon,  particu- 
larly among  architects,  though  rarely  published  in  that  way.  It  would  be 
well  if  our  cities  would  gather  information  regarding  time  and  quantities 
in  their  work  items  and  embody  it  in  their  annual  reports.  With  it  the 
present  difficulties  of  estimating  for  new  municipal  work  would  be  largely 
removed. 

If  work  data  were  recorded  more  frequently  than  heretofore,  and 


6         COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

depended  on  fixed  bases,  such  as  per  individual,  hour,  weight,  or  measure, 
the  information  would  be  more  intelligible,  accurate,  and  useful  than 
at  present.  Whenever  such  information  was  available  for  the  subjects 
discussed  in  this  book,  it  has  been  given. 

We  believe  that  it  will  be  seen  in  the  following  chapters  that  the  whole 
subject  of  refuse  collection  and  disposal,  both  theoretically  and  practi- 
cally, has  almost  entirely  passed  the  period  of  speculation  and  experiment. 
With  much  better  prospects  of  success,  now  than  formerly,  and  with  but 
few  elements  lacking,  it  is  possible  to  forecast,  both  in  efficiency  and 
cost,  the  results  of  the  best  known  methods  and  works. 

Therefore,  after  the  best  solution  for  the  local  requirements  has  been 
ascertained  and  the  most  suitable  works  have  been  built,  their  final 
success  depends  almost  wholly  on  the  competence  of  those  charged 
with  their  operation. 


CHAPTER  I 

REFUSE  MATERIALS 

Municipal  refuse  materials  are  the  solid  waste  matters  resulting 
from  the  natural  activities  of  a  community.  Their  proper  collection 
and  final  disposal  depend  on  the  character  of  the  particular  materials 
to  be  dealt  with.  They  are  distinct  from  the  liquid  portions  of  com- 
munity wastes — generally  called  sewage^ — yet  some  of  them,  although 
substantially  solid  in  structure,  contain  large  quantities  of  moisture. 

A.— DEFINITIONS 

The  general  term  "refuse"  includes  the  following  classes  of  waste 
material : 

1.  Street  Refuse. — The  rejected  material  collected  from  public 
streets  and  alleys;  it  includes  snow,  street  sweepings,  leaves,  cleanings 
from  public  catch-basins,  and  waste  building  materials.  (See  Chapter 
XV.)  It  also  includes  those  large  dead  animals  which  require  removal 
by  the  community.     (See  Chapter  XVI.) 

2.  Trade  Refuse. — The  solid  waste  from  factories,  slaughter 
houses,  and  business  establishments;  it  includes  steam  ashes  and 
trade  rubbish. 

3.  Market  Refuse. — A  special  trade  refuse,  made  up  chiefly  of 
garbage  and  rubbish,  and  coming — either  separately  or  combined — 
from  commission  houses  and  public  markets. 

4.  Stable  Refuse. — Substantially  manure  and  straw.  (See  Chapter 
XIV.) 

5.  House  Refuse. — Chiefly  garbage,  ashes,  rubbish,  and  night-soil, 
from  houses,  apartments,  small  stores,  schools,  churches,  hotels,  and 
other  establishments  which  do  not  themselves  dispose  of  the  solid 
refuse  they  produce. 

6.  Garbage. — Garbage  is  the  animal  and  vegetable  waste  matter 
originating  in  houses,  kitchens,  restaurants,  and  hotels,  and  includes 
the  natural  content  of  moisture  and  generally,  also,  the  tin  cans  in 
which  portions  of  the  food  were  originally  supplied.     It  is  chiefly  food 

7 


8         COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

waste,  and  consists  almost  entirely  of  organic  matter  and  water. 
Much  of  it,  particularly  the  animal  matter,  readily  breaks  down,  and, 
in  warm  weather,  soon  becomes  foul.  The  oxygen  of  the  air  is  not 
absorbed  fast  enough  to  prevent  the  beginning  of  putrefaction  in  warm 
moist  weather  within  24  hours,  and  consequently  offensive  odors  may 
arise. 

Garbage  is  an  important  part  of  the  refuse,  and  may  have  a  fair 
commercial  value,  because  it  contains  animal  and  plant  foods,  and 
more  or  less  grease;  it  is  important  also  because,  if  not  properly  and 
quickly  disposed  of,  it  is  likely  to  create  a  serious  nuisance.  It  has 
been  the  subject  of  more  discussion,  the  treatment  has  been  more 
varied,  and  there  is  still  more  difference  of  opinion  regarding  the  proper 
method  of  disposing  of  it,  than  in  the  case  of  any  other  kind  of  refuse. 

With  reference  to  the  fermentation  of  garbage,  Mr.  Edward  D. 
Very  *  may  be  quoted,  as  follows : 

"Fresh  garbage,  as  it  reaches  the  can,  will  remain,  in  ordinary  weather,  at 
a  temperature  of  about  70°  F.,  for  from  12  to  14  hrs.  before  any  change  takes 
place.  From  that  time  alcoholic  fermentation  sets  in,  and  this  will  continue 
for  another  period  of,  approximately,  12  to  14  hrs.  If  the  can  is  loosely 
covered,  acetic  acid  fermentation  develops,  but  if  cans  are  fairly  well  closed, 
the  alcoholic  fermentation  continues  for  about  36  hrs.,  after  which  there  is 
practically  no  further  action.  *  *  *  gy  test  it  has  been  found  that  in 
garbage  which  has  remained  in  the  can  under  ordinary  temperatures  for 
from  3  to  4  days,  and  even  as  long  as  21  days,  the  free  fatty  acids  of  the  grease 
are  not  more  than  from  5  to  7%,  whereas  where  matter  of  a  like  nature  is  sub- 
jected to  putrefactive  action,  the  grease  analyzes  from  30  to  40%  of  free  fatty 
acids,  which  indicates  the  absence  of  decomposition  in  ordinary  garbage  as  it 
is  contained  in  the  can. 

"The  fermentation  noted  develops  small  amounts  of  alcohol  and  acetic 
acid,  with  slight  changes  in  the  vegetable  oils,  but  none  in  the  animal  oils. 

"The  sour  odor  of  garbage  is  the  result  of  this  fermentation  developing 
acetic  acid,  together  with  certain  fruit  esters,  f  aldehydes,  and  alcohol." 

The  terms  "slops,"  "offal,"  or  "swill,"  are  sometimes  applied 
to  garbage,  but  they  will  not  be  used  in  this  sense  in  the  present 
volume.  In  some  special  instances,  the  term  "  garbage  "  is  used  as 
excluding  tin  cans,  particularly  where  it  is  delivered  for  final  disposal 
either  at  reduction  works  or  at  hog  farms.  It  has  also  been  used  to 
indicate  a  mixture  of  garbage  with  rubbish,  or  even  with  ashes.  We 
do  not  give  it  these  meanings. 

7.  Ashes. — House  ashes  are  defined  as  the  residue  from  coal  and 

*  In  a  paper  before  the  Society  of  Chemical  Industry,  March  20th,  1908. 
t  An  ethereal  salt  consisting  of  an  organic  radical  and  any  oxygen  acid. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS  9 

wood  fires  in  dwelling  houses,  schools,  churches,  stores,  and  small 
business  establishments,  but  may  include  also  small  quantities  of 
other  inorganic  materials,  as  glass,  crockery,  metallic  substances, 
bricks,  earth,  and  dust.  Steam  ashes  are  defined  as  ashes  from  fires 
under  large  boilers,  and  are  then  generally  considered  as  a  part  of  trade 
refuse.  They  do  not  differ  materially  from  house  ashes,  except  that 
they  contain  less  foreign  material;  in  Milwaukee  they  were  found  to 
have  about  the  same  useful  calorific  value.  Usuallj',  they  do  not  contain 
as  much  cinder  or  unburned  coal,  nor  as  much  dust,  as  house  ashes. 

8.  Rubbish. — Rubbish  comprises  miscellaneous  materials  from 
houses  and  stores,  such  as  are  not  classed  specifically  under  garbage  or 
ashes.  It  consists  chiefly  of  wood,  paper,  rags,  bedding,  excelsior, 
straw,  leather,  rubber,  old  furniture,  stoneware,  glass,  boxes,  barrels, 
etc.,  and  sweepings  from  buildings.  The  most  objectionable  parts  of 
refuse  of  this  class  are  the  dust  and  possibly  pathogenic  germs  which 
may  be  contained  in  cast-off  clothing,  bedding,  and  sweepings.  Under 
ordinary  conditions,  its  odor  is  but  slightly  offensive,  and  its  decom- 
position is  slow  and  not  putrescent. 

9.  Mixed  Refuse. — In  many  communities,  especially  in  Europe, 
garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  are  placed  together  in  one  receptacle  at 
the  house;  thereafter  they  do  not  exist  as  separate  and  distinct  classes 
of  city  waste.  A  mixture  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish,  resulting 
from  their  combined  treatment  at  the  house  and  in  their  collection,  as 
distinct  from  a  separate  collection,  will  be  called  mixed  refuse. 

Mixed  refuse,  from  the  point  of  view  of  cleanliness,  presents 
several  advantages.  The  greatest  nuisances  from  garbage,  when  it 
is  kept  separate,  are  caused  by  the  odors  from  putrefaction  and  from 
the  foul  free  liquids.  Both  nuisances  are  moderated  and  sometimes 
even  prevented  for  several  days  if  the  garbage  is  mixed  with  ashes  and 
rubbish.  The  greatest  nuisance  from  ashes  alone  is  the  dust  which  is 
blown  from  them.  Moist  garbage,  when  mixed  with  ashes,  tends  to 
lessen  the  quantity  of  this  dust.  The  greatest  nuisance  from  rubbish 
is  caused  by  the  loose  paper  which  is  blown  away  from  the  can,  wagon, 
or  dump,  and  this  is  less  likely  to  happen  if  the  rubbish  is  weighted 
down  with  garbage  and  ashes.  The  mixed  refuse,  further,  has  a 
greater  fuel  value  than  any  one  of  its  separate  materials.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  ashes  and  rubbish  are  mixed  with  garbage,  the  recovery  of 
grease  from  the  latter  is  made  impracticable,  and  also  the  utilization 
of  the  food  values. 

10.  Night-Soil. — This  term  is  applied  to  the  contents  of  privies 
and  cesspools  used  at  houses  for  which  there  are  no  sewers.  (See 
Chapter  XVI.) 


lO     collection  and  disposal  of  municipal  refuse 


B.— CLASSIFICATION 

The  constituents  of  refuse  are  classified  in  Table  1.  This  classifi- 
cation, with  some  modifications,  was  taken  from  a  paper  entitled 
"  Disposal  of  Municipal  Refuse,  and  Rubbish  Incineration,"  by  Mr. 
H.  de  B.  Parsons.* 

The  principal  subjects  which  are  important  in  a  study  of  refuse 
materials  are: 

(a)    The  quantities  produced; 

(6)    Their  composition; 

(c)   The  relative  proportion  of  the  combined  materials. 

The  quantities  of  refuse,  their  composition,  and  the  various  pro- 
portions in  which  they  occur  when  collected  together,  can  be  ascer- 
tained with  a  fair  degree  of  accuracy  from  the  published  records  and 
reports  of  city  officials  having  charge  of  refuse  disposal  work.  How- 
ever, this  source  of  information  is  neither  uniform,  nor  always  accurate, 
which  detracts  somewhat  from  its  practical  usefulness  unless  detailed 
conditions  governing  the  record  are  also  given.  (See  Chapter  I,  D.) 
In  some  instances,  only  the  number  of  loads  of  refuse  collected  is 
recorded,  and  the  tonnage  estimated  from  this  record  is  based  on  an 
assumed  weight  per  load,  or  at  best  on  a  few  scattered  weighings. 
The  following  statement  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Health  Department 
of  Milwaukee,  Mr.  A.  B.  Cargill,  in  his  annual  report  for  1910,  shows 
how  errors  may  result. 

"It  will  be  noted  under  the  reports  of  garbage  collection  that  there  is  a 
decrease  in  the  tonnage  although  an  increase  is  shown  in  the  number  of  loads. 
This  is  due  almost  entirely  to  the  fact  that  a  new  method  for  weighing  garbage 
has  been  employed  since  the  installation  of  the  new  plant.  During  the  pre- 
ceding four  years,  estimates  were  made  of  the  tonnage,  based  upon  the  actual 
weights  of  three  sample  loads  per  day.  This  was  the  best  method  available 
under  the  circumstances,  as  we  had  no  facilities  for  weighing  all  of  the  garbage 
received.  In  fact,  it  was  a  much  more  accurate  plan  than  that  employed  in 
most  cities.  With  the  erection  of  the  new  refuse  incineration  plant,  however, 
a  wagon  scale  was  built,  and  since  that  time  we  have  been  weighing  every  load 
of  garbage  and  other  refuse  received.  The  results  clearly  indicate  that  in  the 
past  our  method  of  weighing  has  been  (as  we  knew  it  was)  faulty.  It  has 
shown,  however,  that  the  Department  has  been  over-weighing.  This  has  been 
unavoidable  and  unintentional.  It  is  a  matter  of  satisfaction  that  the  city  is 
now  receiving  its  tonnage  and  figuring  its  cost  per  ton  upon  absolutely  reliable 
figures  and  not  upon  estimates,  as  has  been  true  in  the  past. 

"In  making  a  comparison  of  the  costs  per  ton  with  previous  years,  there- 
fore, the  facts  stated  above  must  be  taken  into  consideration,  and  the  per- 

*  Transactions,  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  Vol.  LVII  (1906),  p.  45. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


11 


Municipal 
Refuse 


Public 
Refuse 


Trade 
Refuse 


Market 
Refuse 


Stable 
Refuse 


House 
Refuse 


Table  1. — Classification  of  Refuse  Materials 

Street  Manure  and  Litter 

Sweepings  and  Dust 

Leaves 

Droppings  from  Carts 

Large  Dead  Animals 

Snow 

Cleanings  from  Public  Catoh-basins 

Steam  Ashes 

Dry  Factory  Wastes 

Slaughter  House  Waste 

Rubbish  from  Office  Buildings  and  Factories 

Cleanings  from  Private  Catch-basins 

Garbage  from  Markets 

Rubbish  and  Cleanings  from  Markets 

Old  Boxes  and  Barrels 

Manure 

Straw 

Cleanings  from  Stables 

Fly  Maggots 

Animal  Matter,  including  moisture 

Vegetable  Matter,  including  moisture 

Tin  Cans 

Small  Dead  Animals 

Coal  and  Cinders 

Clinker  and  Slate 

Dust 

Glass 

Crockery 

Brick  and  Stone 

Metal  Fragments 

Sweepings  from  Buildings 

Boxes  and  Barrels 

Wood 

Paper 


Rubbish 


Garbage 


Ashes 


Night-soil 


Excelsior 

Straw 

Leather 

Rubber 

Metal  Ware 

Bedding 

Old  Furniture 

Contents  of  Privies 


12       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

centage  of  over-weighing  in  past  years  must  be  figured  in,  if  such  comparisons 
are  to  be  accurate  and  fair." 

Exceptions  to  the  many  former  inaccurate  statements  are  the 
contents  of  a  number  of  annual  reports  of  recent  date. 


C— SPECIAL  INVESTIGATIONS 

The  most  helpful  sources  of  information  on  the  subject  of  refuse 
materials  are  the  special  investigations  and  reports  which  have  been 
made  under  various  authorities. 

The  first  comprehensive  investigation  of  the  subject  of  refuse  dis- 
posal in  America  was  begun  in  1887  by  the  Garbage  Committee  of  the 
American  Public  Health  Association,  of  which  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering 
later  was  Chairman.  This  Committee  published  several  reports  in 
the  Transactions  of  the  American  Public  Health  Association,  the 
Final  Report  appearing  in  1897.  As  a  result  of  these  general  investi- 
gations, several  large  cities  undertook  special  examinations  of  their 
refuse  disposal  problems.  The  earliest  of  these  was  in  Brooklyn,  in 
1896,  by  Messrs.  Taylor  and  Locke.  At  about  the  same  time  Mr. 
R.  H.  Thomson  made  a  report  on  the  refuse  disposal  problem  for 
Seattle.  Following  these,  investigations  were  made  in  New  York 
City,  by  Col.  George  E.  Waring,  Jr.,  in  1898,  and  in  Trenton,  N.  J., 
by  Mr.  Rudolph  Hering,  assisted  by  Mr.  Theodore  Horton,  in  1902. 

Since  1902  there  has  been  a  marked  increase  in  the  number  of  such 
investigations,  although  many  of  these  studies  do  not  include  detailed 
analyses,  measurements,  and  weights  of  refuse  materials.  A  few  are 
described  below. 

1.  Bufifalo,  N.  Y. — In  1902  Mr.  Olin  H.  Landreth  was  commissioned 
by  the  City  of  Buffalo  to  make  an  investigation  for  improved  methods 
of  refuse  disposal.  The  results  are  published  in  the  Papers  and  Re- 
ports of  the  American  Public  Health  Association,  Vol.  28,  1902. 

2.  Boston,  Mass. — Between  1905  and  1910  investigations  and 
reports  were  made  on  the  refuse  disposal  of  Boston.  The  author  of 
the  first  report  was  Mr.  X.  H.  Goodnough,  Chief  Engineer  of  the  Mass- 
achusetts State  Board  of  Health.*  This  general  report  was  followed 
by  special  reports,  to  the  Mayor  of  Boston,  containing  much  valuable 
information  relative  to  daily  quantities  of  refuse.  The  data  are 
arranged  to  show  the  variation  in  the  quantities  produced  during 
different  seasons  and  in  different  districts  of  the  city.  It  is  one  of  the 
earliest  American  reports  in  which  comprehensive  and  careful  statistics 
of  refuse  materials  and  their  disposal  are  presented. 

*  Journal,  Assoc.  Eng.  Soc,  May,  1908. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


13 


3.  New  York,  N.  Y.— In  1907  Messrs.  Parsons,  Hering,  and 
Whinery  presented  to  the  Mayor  of  New  York  a  comprehensive  report 
on  street  cleaning  and  refuse  disposal.  Some  data  from  this  report 
relative  to  the  quantities  of  refuse  materials  collected  from  the 
Boroughs  of  Manhattan,  Brooklyn,  and  The  Bronx  for  1905  are  shown 
in  Table  2,  together  with  later  data  for  1910  to  1917,  inclusive. 

The  unit  weights,  per  cubic  foot,  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  are 
given  in  Table  3,  and  also  later  data  from  other  cities.  These  data 
were  secured  from  actual  measurements  of  a  large  number  of  wagons 
at  the  various  city  dumps.     The  foregoing  report  also  contains  valu- 

Table  2. — Quantities  of  Refuse  Materials  Collected  in  the  Boroughs 

OF  Manhattan,  Brooklyn,  and  The  Bronx,  of  New  York  City, 

IN  1905,  and  from  1910  to  1917,  inclusive 

(From  Reports  of  Department  of  Street  Cleaning) 


Year 

Popula- 

Pounds 

PER  Capita  per 

Annum 

Cubic 

Feet  per  Day  per  1000 
Population 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

1905* 

3,833,618 

187 

955 

92 

1234 

12.55 

66.42 

46.32 

125.29 

1910 

4,396,873 

157 

1401 

89 

1647 

11.64 

86.36 

46.15 

144.15 

1911 

4,575,000 

141 

1443 

88 

1672 

10.42 

88.93 

45.76 

145.11 

1912 

4,743,771 

148 

1430 

95 

1673 

10.94 

88.16 

49.16 

148.26 

1913 

4,917,220 

158 

1360 

103 

1621 

11.70 

83.87 

53.12 

148.69 

1914 

5,190,779 

159 

1302 

94 

1555 

11.75 

80.26 

48.68 

140.69 

1915 

5,018,870 

175 

1305 

113 

1593 

12.94 

80.41 

58.25 

151.60 

1916 

5,138,532 

166 

1345 

105 

1616 

12.26 

82.93 

54.28 

149.47 

1917t 

5,241,302 

153 

1345 

91 

1589 

11.30 

82.91 

46.96 

141 . 17 

*  From  Report  of  Parsons,  Bering,  and  Whinery,  1907. 

t  The  quantities  for  1917  are  based  on  records  for  11  months,  Jan.  1  to  Nov.  30. 


able  information  relative  to  the  chemical  composition  of  house  refuse. 
This  is  shown  in  Tables  4  and  5. 

4.  Rochester,  N.  Y.— In  1906  Mr.  Edwin  A.  Fisher,  City  Engineer 
of  Rochester,  published  a  report  on  the  collection  and  disposal  of  gar- 
bage and  other  city  refuse.  This  report  contains  a  digest  of  several 
special  and  annual  reports,  together  with  cost  data  for  the  collection 
and  disposal  of  refuse  materials. 

5.  Milwaukee,  Wis. — In  the  latter  part  of  1907,  Hering  made  a 
comprehensive  report  on  garbage  disposal  for  the  City  of  Milwaukee, 
to  Dr.  G.  A.  Bading,  Health  officer,  recommending  the  building  of  a 
high-temperature  incinerator  to  burn  the  mixed  refuse  of    the  city. 


14       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

This  report  gives  statistics  as  to  the  quantities  of  refuse  materials 
and  the  costs  for  collection  and  disposal.  A  recent  record  of  monthly- 
variations  in  the  quantities  of  different  kinds  of  household  refuse  for 
Milwaukee,  Wis.,  is  given  in  Table  14  under  Seasonal  Variations. 

6.  West  New  Brighton,  N.  Y.— On  December  18th,  1907,  Mr.  J.  T. 
Fetherston  presented  to  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers  a 
comprehensive  paper  *  describing  investigations  for  refuse  disposal  in 


Table  3. — Unit  Weights  op  Gakbage,  Ashes,  and  Rubbish 
IN  Several  Cities 


Weight,  in  Pounds  pbb 

Cubic  Foot 

City 

Year 

Reference 

Gar- 
bage 

Ashes 

Rub- 
bish 

New  York,  N.  Y.: 

Manhattan   and 

Bronx 

1907 

41.1 

40.0 

5.3 

] 

Brooklyn 

1907 

41.1 

36.1 

4.7 

\  Parsons,  Hering  and  Whinery 

Richmond 

1907 

34.5 

44.5 

7.4 

j 

Chicago,  111 

1912 

39.4 

Osborn-Fetherston 

Boston,  Mass 

1906-07 

42.5 

50.0 

7.8 

Goodnough,    Jour.    Assoc.    Eng. 
Soc,  May,  1908 

Buffalo,  N.Y 

1913 

5.0 

Norton 

Columbus,  Ohio.  .  . 

1909-10 

43.7 

"^ 

Cleveland,  Ohio .  .  . 
Dayton,  Ohio 

1909-10 
1909 

50.2 
54.5 

>  State  Bd.  of  Health  Rept.,  1910 

Cincinnati,  Ohio .  .  . 

1909-10 

45.4 

. 

Milwaukee,  Wis .  s 

1912 
1912 

36.1 

28.7 

Winter 
Summer 

Rochester,  N.  Y.  .  . 

1906 

43.3 

7.4 

Fisher,  E.  A. 

San  Francisco,  Cal . 

1908-09 

41.0 

41.0 

22.0 

Dept.  Public  Works,  June,  1910 

Trenton,  N.  J.  .  .   < 

1913 
1913 

44.5 

43.3  (wet) 

36.4  (dry) 

>  Hering  and  Gregory 

Washington,            ( 

1915 

7.5 

Osborn 

D.  C.                   \ 

1915 

40.8 

Los  Angeles,  Cal . . . 

1915-16 

44.5 

13.7 

Knowlton,  W.  T. 

the  Borough  of  Richmond,  New  York  City.  This  paper  gives  records 
of  the  quantities,  proportions,  and  composition  of  the  refuse  materials 
collected  during  a  period  of  several  years.  In  Table  6  are  data  taken 
from  this  report  to  show  the  quantity  of  house  refuse,  by  volume  and 
weight,  collected  in  the  West  New  Brighton  District  of  the  Borough 
of  Richmond,  and  to  show  the  composition  of  house  refuse  by  months 
throughout  the  year. 

*  Transactions,  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  Vol.  LX  (1908),  p.  345. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


15 


7.  San  Francisco,  Cal. — For  several  years  prior  to  1910  the  Depart- 
ment of  Public  Works  of  San  Francisco  made  investigations  into  the 
quantities  and  characteristics  of  the  refuse  materials  produced  in  that 
city.  The  resulting  statistics  are  tabulated  and  published  in  "Speci- 
fication No.  5452,  Garbage  Disposal  System,"  dated  June,  1910,  from 
which  Table  7  is  taken. 


Table  4. — Analyses  of  Garbage  in  New  York  City 

(Data  from  Parsons,  Hering,  Whinery  Report,  1907) 


Sample. 


Place  where  sample  was  taken . 


B 


E.  107th 
Street 
dump 


Stanton 
Street 
dump 


D 


W.  47th 
Street 
dump 


Far 

Rockaway 

diimp 


Moisture 

Volatile  combustible  matter . 

Fixed  carbon 

Inorganic  matter  or  ash .  .  .  . 


65.90 
34.10 


76.00 

17.80 

2.85 

3.35 


60.00 

29.74 

4.82 

5.44 


65  00 

25.85 
4.47 
4.68 


73.00 
17.36 

2.78 
6.86 


Included  in  above: 

Grease 

Phosphorus  pentoxide 

Potassium  oxide 

Nitrogen 

Calorific  value  of  dry  material,  in 

B.t.u 


100.00 

7.07 
0.07 
0.30 
0.86 


Calorific  value  calculated  to  orig- 
inal material  containing  original 
percentage  of  moisture,  in  B  .t  .u . 


100.00 

3.52 
0.26 
0.31 
0.73 

8803 


1114 


100.00 

7.22 
0.93 
0.33 
1.25 

9335 


2945 


100.00 

6.82 
0.58 
0.35 
0.83 

8831 


2236 


100 . 00 

2.83 
0.57 
0.49 
0.95 

8774 


1409 


8.  Ohio  Cities.— The  State  Board  of  Health  of  Ohio,  Mr.  R.  W. 
Pratt,  Chief  Engineer,  published  a  report  in  1910  giving  information 
as  to  refuse  materials  in  many  Ohio  cities  and  towns.  Four  cities  in 
particular  were  closely  studied,  and  the  information  given  in  detail. 
Some  of  the  data  in  this  report,  however,  rest  on  assumed  bases, 
where  records  of  unit  quantities  were  not  available.  Figs.  1,  2,  and  3, 
and  some  data  in  Tables  8  and  9  are  taken  from  this  report. 

9.  Chicago,  111.— Early  in  1914,  Messrs.  I.  S.  Osborn  and  J.  T. 
Fetherston  made  a  report  on  the  collection  and  disposal  of  garbage 
and  refuse  in  Chicago,  Mr.  Samuel  A.  Greeley  being  in  charge  of 
the  field  investigations. 


16       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


O 

o 


I 


cq 
H 


(N    t^    CO    10 

0 

(M 

00  CO  00 

0 

Bid 

CO  00  01  >o 

0 

CO 

l>  ^  1-1 

0 

hJ 

oii 

d  d  ^  CO 

Q 

1— ( 

d  00  d 

d 

£^ 

CO  CO 

s 

1—1 

CO  »o 

0 

1—1 

1 

T-H     ■*     l-H     •>* 

0 

,_< 

CO    10    CO 

0 

V/ 

1 

o  S  S  d 

00  0  1>  "* 
0  CO  r^  00 

0 
0 

10 

CO    CO    0 

CO  d  d 

0 

fe^S^ 

<N   CO 

0 

(N 

CO  10 

2 

§5^5 

rt<    CO   t^   CO 

0 

t^~    '^    CD 

0 

m 

-*     0     CO     --H 

0 

CO    CO    05 

0 

^ 

1-5 

d 

h  fr. 
riva 

.  38 

St. 

--H     10    t^    CO 

0 

0   C^    CO 

d 

s 

o3 

T-H     ,-H     CO 

CO 

T-H    1— 1     -rfl 

0 

2 

-    ja 

-ap 

^^-^ 

T— 1 

1—1 

o 

ItS^k  .S 

CO          Tt<           0 

0 

03 

0        ^        lO 

0 

§ 

w 

s 

^fgd^^-s 

0        CO        CD 

0 

O 

o 

-    d 
a; 

m-c^j2  03       ™ 

T-l               00 

0 

1—1 

a    m5 

o  ffl  d'3  <DiN 

CO     CO     T-H 

-o 

CO       00        00 

o 

S 

o  g  i:  o  o 

d     00     0 

0 

• 

0 

a> 

CTi 

0 

I— 1 

o 

3 

> 

from 
■ate 
rning 
nnel 
oal 

"*        CO        CO 

o 

^ 

^ 

fe 

CO     00     ic 

d         r-i         l> 

0 

1 

(M        I> 

0 

1—1 

1 

107th 
lump, 
lan- 
ttan 

0    C33    t^    ■* 

c 

^ 

~io  0  0 

0 

1 

(M    CO    00    »c 

c 

oc 

rtH    CO    TjH 

0 

^ 

^ 

H 

rH     CO    d     Tf 

CO 

odd 

d 

C! 

O 

■^S  03 

r-(    (N     CC 

CO 

1—1     1-4     10 

0 

2 

^ 

PL, 

T-H 

I— 1 

?!  a  d  03 

CO    rH    t^     C 

c 

c 

1-1  00  1-1 

0 

tj 

m 

05    1>     r-l    >- 

c 

c 

t-  02  CO 

0 

-S 

P. 

Q 

■*   3   03+J 

0     r-l     (N     lit 

CO 

C^    C^l    CO 

d 

"C 

g 

<M    (N    "t 

Tj- 

!—(       1— 1       CO 

0 

0) 

3 
>> 

T-H 

1-1 

m 

-1-    « 

t-  g  d  oi 

CO     "*     CC 

c 

[3 

00"       TJH         t- 

c 

O 

*Q 

O 

■*  3  oj+J 

0       lO       CC 

o3 

a 

CO     CO 

a 

o 

5aig 

0      t^      CC 

c 

o 

J3 

00       I>-       Tf 

c 

cS 

< 

m 

d  3  o3£ 

0          --H          t^ 

c 

-2 

CO        CC 

c 

c3 

~-' 

ifiS 

oi     (N     cr 

c 

CO          1-1          r- 

c 

-< 

Clin 
t.du 
Ma 
hatt 

i-H          0         03 

CO       CO 

c 

>s 

w 

^ 

,__, 

o3 

a 

1 

1 

0 

0 

03 

i 

a 

0 

a 

<D 

^ 

a 

3 
"^ 

T3 

c3 

IS 

li 

a 

1— t 

0 

3 

3 

r2 

JS 

0  -O 

"a 

CJ 

'E 

0  ^     . 

'3 

t 

"  ^^ 

c 

^ 

n^     ^-^ 

0 

0 

s 

2^  -§  "  S 

H 

s 

c3 

a  S; 

i 

:S    "    S§ 

H 

1 

0 

CO 

P4 

Moistu 
Volat: 
Fixed 
True 

to 

Volat 
Fixed 
True 

REFUSE  MATERIALS 


17 


H 

1-4 

H 

; 

r/) 

P 

> 

|S^ 

w 

O 

6 

w 

o 

« 

O) 

pq 

F! 

^ 

< 

u 

«0 

^ 

■S 

O  :S 


<  H 


W 


<;    ID 


Oj  CI   bli       ^^   o 


TO  o  !-•  cr.  cj  CI  o;  (M  CO      to  co  M 
OlXOOiOX  lOCOCD      t^oOOS 


'0  0'OCC05"OCCCC'<1<       OltSO 


co"0  0i-»t^^oooro     ooMio 

•-1  OJ  <N  IN  CI  O  t>.  t^  00       WC  — 


■*  T)<  O  00  "O  (N  U5  ^  0>       IM^O 

CO  i>  05  00  00  00 1^  00  00     000600 


COt^fNt^-i-HCiOi-^O  0000 

<N  ^  I^  t-i  CO -^  O  t-H  O  t^  CO  CO 

■^^•o  10 -^  CO  1— I  Tt  10  coco-*^ 

IN  IN  IN  CsTcf  (n"iN  ININ  m'in  m" 


f^  o  °*^  2~  g'^ 


OJ  d  M  o  (3  ^^  o 
(^  S  '^^  2'-  o'^ 


ci 

o'-3 

II 
0  >. 

10  O  OCO(^  OiCOCO  05        »-<Ti*CO 


CO  t^  O  OS  00  t-H  00 -^  o       o»-«o 


CO  CD  00  r- 05  1-1 1- o  t^       Wrft^ 
O  0>  "-I  O  O  00  Tf  T)<  Tj(      cooooi 


05  "O  t^  CO  M*  O  O  ^  f-H  t^oo»o 

IN  i-H  IN  CO  o  ■*  CD t- C35  -^oir-^ 

CD  t- t^  t^  05  CO  CS  rH  (N  CO>Ot~ 

05  CO  o  Oi  00  r*  r^  Tji  Tj<  uot^oo 


1-1 10  CD  CO -"i"  (^  c:;  00  CO     rtot^ 

COfNCD 


CO  CO  IN  r-i  CO  O  O  l^  t~       <N»00 
05C0O050000t--t>.t^       t-NioO 


a)  C  M  o  c  >?—  o 

o  E     "^ 


E" 


(»  C  M  O  iS  >i—   o 
(ll  g  C3_^  0~  O'^ 


•*  IN  OS cq  r^  "O CD i-i t-.     r-oO'* 

i-llO  05  I^  10  (N  i-H  CD  t^        CDt-O! 

oco  ^^ooot^  10  CO  CO     10  CO  00 


10  ■*  O  t~  CO  ■-<  (^  r>.  rH      oscOtjh 


t^  t^  C<l  t^  r-l  t-.  C9  CO  »0         COM^H 

•ocoioi^oooocraooq     --<ojoo 


CDiOOOOiOiCCOOSCO 
OC0C0Ttit>.t^T)<OTj< 


05  ic  >0  t^  CO  CO  T-(  (N  t^       OSOCO 


I    A  „IN^  tJ  - 
fee  M-^-g^  o 


t*  t*  c^  t^  f-H  t*  c<i  CO  10     eowt-i 

"O  CO  lO  t~  00  00  05  O  (N       i-HOsoO 


gj  10  CO  lo  Tti  t^  CO  CO  a>  coiNTf< 
O  CO  t^  Tt*  t^  i-H  10  lO  00  o»ct^ 
■*  (N  CO  iC  lO  CO  CD  t^  00       00CD>O 


.  IV  v 

.  ft  ft 

:  s  ?? 


I  3  ca 

1  C-C 


"o  J'O  cij 


18       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

In  December,  i913,  and  in  January  and  February,  1914,  nineteen 
loads  of  mixed  ashes  and  rubbish  were  weighed  and  then  separated  by 
hand  into  the  items  listed  in  Table  10.  Summer  conditions  for 
Chicago  are  shown  in  Table  11. 

Table  7. — Computed  from  Data  Obtained  from  Analyses  of  Samples 

Collected  from  the  Entire  City  of  San  Francisco  on  the 

Dates  Indicated. 


(From 

'Specification  No.  5452,  Garbage  Disposal  System") 

Date 

Unit 
weight 

of 
refuse 

in 

pounds 

per  cubic 

foot 

Percentage 
of  com- 
bustible 
in  refuse, 
by 
weight 

Percentage 
of  incom- 
bustible 
in  refuse, 
by 
weight 

Percentage 

of 

moisture 

in  refuse, 

by 

weight 

Heating 
Value 
of  the 
com- 
bustible 
in  refuse, 
in  B.t.u. 
per 
pound 

Heating 

Value 

of  refuse 

as 

collected, 

in  B.t.u. 

per 

pound 

Dec.    7,  1908.... 
Dec.  10,  1908...  . 
Dec.  17,  1908.... 
Dec.  29,  1908.... 
Jan.  28,  1909.... 

Averages 

31.1 
29.5 
27.0 
29.6 
32.2 

22.65 
22.46 
23.34 
23.06 
23.16 

26.45 
25.37 
29.53 
27.71 

28.37 

50.90 
52.17 
47.13 
49.27 

48.47 

10,836 
10,540 
10,588 
10,330 
10,230 

2,457 
2,352 
2,481 
2,388 
2,366 

29.7 

22.9 

27.2 

49.9 

10,530 

2,410 

Note. — The  percentages  of  combustible,  incombustible,  and  moisture,  and  the  heating 
values  stated  in  this  table  were  obtained  by  experiments  outlined  as  follows:  Small 
samples  were  taken  at  random  from  each  load  as  it  was  dumped  into  the  receiving  bins, 
and  all  the  samples  collected  from  the  loads  from  each  section  during  the  day  were  thrown 
into  a  pile.  This  pile  was  then  thoroughly  mixed  and  divided  until  a  sample  of  about 
1  cu.  ft.  was  obtained.  It  was  chopped  up,  mixed,  and  divided  until  a  sample  of  1  qt. 
was  obtained.  This  was  dried  in  a  small  oven  until  no  further  reduction  of  weight 
was  observed,  thus  determining  the  moisture.  The  combustible  was  then  determined 
from  these  samples  in  a  chemical  laboratory,  the  heating  value  being  ascertained  with  a 
bomb  calorimeter. 


10.  Washington,  D.  C— During  1915,  Mr.  I.  S.  Osborn  made  ? 
careful  investigation  of  refuse  disposal  for  Washington,  D.  C.  In 
co-operation  with  the  Bureau  of  Soils,  many  analyses  were  made  of 
different  kinds  of  refuse.  Some  of  the  data  appear  at  the  close  of  this 
chapter.  The  report  *  recommended  the  reduction  of  garbage,  the 
burning  of  rubbish,  and  the  dumping  of  ashes. 

11.  Danville,  111. — In  1916,  Greeley  made  investigations  in  two 
smaller  cities,  Danville  (population  35,000)  and  Galesburg  (population 
25,000)   in   Illinois.     Data  on  refuse   collection  conditions  are  pre- 

*  House  Document  No.  661,  1916. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


19 


sented  together  with  recommendations  for  ordinances,  house  treat- 
ment, collection  work,  burial  of  garbage,  sorting,  burning  of  rubbish, 


•0 

S  n 

I  - 

I  2 

g  H 

g  " 


Ian. 
Feb. 
Mar. 
April 
May 
June 
July 
Aug. 
Sept. 
Oct, 
Nov. 
Dec. 

Jan. 

Feb. 
^  Mar. 
'a  p  April 
I*  Pi  May 
e-.  <  June 
§  ^  July 
^  >  Aug. 
6  2  Sept. 
g  °  Oct. 
°        Nov. 

Dec. 

Jan. 
w  Feb. 
o  Mar. 
g_  O  April 
p  O  May 
5-  g  June 
D  g  July 
jL  CO  Aug. 
S  g  Sept. 
§         Oct. 

Nov. 

Dec. 


nj 


Jan. 

Feb. 

Mar. 
E.  Q  April 
^  >  May 
o'  *^  June 

II  o  J"iy 

C  Z  Aug. 
I:^        Sept. 


s 


Oct. 
Nov. 
Dec. 


Pounds  per  Capita  per  Month 


Fig.  1. — Quantities  of  Garbage  Collected  in  1909,  in  Ohio  Cities,  in  Poimas 
per  Capita  per  Month. 


and  dumping  of  ashes.    The  report  also  contains  data  on  seasoiaal  vari- 
ations in  the  quantities  of  refuse  materials. 


20       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


12.  Louisville,  Ky. — During  the  summer  of  1917,  the  refuse  dis- 
posal problem  of  Louisville  was  studied  thoroughly  by  Greeley,  as- 
sisted by  Professor  Frederic  Bonnet,  Jr.,  of  Worcester,  Mass.  This 
work  was  carried  out  by  the  aid  of  a  fund  raised  by  the  Women's  City 
Club,  and,  with  its  active  assistance,  many  useful  data  were  obtained 
at  a  minimum  of  cost.  Tabulated  statistics  of  the  house  treatment 
and  collection  service  are  given  in  Table  49. 


50 

c 
°  4n 

^    40 

a 

a 

(U 

0. 

•a 
a. 

(£ 

10 

0 

CINCINNATI  CLEVELAND 


Fig.  2. 


CINCINNATI  CLEVELAND 

Population = 30C  000  PopuIa.tioii = 543  000 


a  8  o  o  u 
,^<  M  OZQ 

DAYTON 

Population  =113  500 


Quantities  of  Ashes  and  Rubbish  Collected  in  1909,  in  Ohio  Cities, 
in  Pounds  per  Capita  per  Month. 


Professor  J.  H.  James,  in  1908,  made  an  analysis  of  the  Louisville 
refuse,  and  also  determined  its  calorific  value.  The  data  are  set  forth 
in  Table  12. 

13.  Other  Investigations. — There  are  numerous  other  investiga- 
tions and  compilations  from  which  we  have  taken  data  and  statistics, 
as,  for  instance,  from  the  United  States  Census  for  1905,  and  the  reports 
made  for  the  Cities  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  Toronto,  Ont.,  and  Newark, 
N.  J.  Municipal  authorities  have  recently  conducted  investigations 
at  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  Springfield  and  Worcester,  Mass.,  Dallas,  Tex., 
Baltimore,  Md.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.,  New  Orleans,  La.,  and  else- 
where, and  all  have  added  to  the  available  information. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


21 


1 

t 

i 
\ 

5500 

/ 

\ 

/ 

t 

\ 

/ 

\ 

\ 

I 

\\        \ 

u- 

u-y 

\\ 

7 

\      \ 

1 
1 

A^ 

} 

u 

/  j 

{  1 

r~-v< 

\ 

H 

1  / 

^/\ 

I    \ 

[\. 

a 

/  / 

-7/ 

\ 

\\ 

1 

// 

\ 

\  \\ 

1 L 

(^\ 

\ 

\\] 

< 

U^ 

1 

\ 

\\ 

\ 

•3 

1  1  1 

1 

\ 

\  \ 

I* 

II' 

1 

\  \ 

?3 

i 

!  f 

1 

\  \ 

\ 

9 

•a 

1/ 

1 

\\ 

\\ 

£ 

/ 

II 

1 

\ 

\ 

i 

, 

rH 

t 

^ 

i\  \ 

\ 

[/  / 

/ 

V\  \ 

\ 

S 

f/ 

/ 

/ 

\\  ^ 

\ 

S 

/ 

/ 

\  \\ 

•3 

* 

p 

/ 

\  V 

}.^ 

o 

i 

/  / 

/ 

\  \ 

!           ^t 

'\ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

( 

\ 

\ 

o\K 

r<'   A 

r' 

/ 

s, 

,        \. 

^y' 

^   / 

/ 

\        ' 

/ 
/ 

/ 

\  'n, 

/ 

V 

/ 

\\ 

/ 

/ 

f 

I 

>/ 

y 

\ 

v 

y/ ; 

/ 

\ 

\\ 

//'> 

\ 

Y 

A' 

\ 

2000 

^ 

YiG.  3. — Comparison  of  Monthly  Variation  in  the  Production  of  Garbage  in 
Cincinnati,  Ohio,  for  1914,  1915,  1916.  and  1917. 


22      COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  8. — Chemical  Analyses  of  Garbage, 
WITH  Special  Reference  to  the  Reduction  Process 


City 

Percentage 

BY  Weight 

Reference 

Grease 

Phos- 
phoric 
acid 

Nitro- 
gen 

Potash 

New  York  City: 

Sample  A 

7.07 

0.07 

0.30 

0.86 

Sample  B .... 

Sample  C 

Sample  D 

3.52 
7.22 
6.82 

0.26 
0.93 
0.58 

0.31 
0.33 
0.35 

0.73 
1.25 
0.83 

^Parsons,  Hering^ 
Whinery 

Sample  E 

2.83 

0.57 

0.49 

0.95 

, 

Milwaukee,  Wis .  .  . 

1.93 

0.51 

0.35 

Professor  Sommer 

Cincinnati,  Ohio . .  . 

4.02 

0.29 

0.64 

0.28 

-» 

Cleveland,  Ohio .  .  . 
Columbus,  Ohio.  .  . 

3.85 
3.96 

0.24 
0.22 

0.64 
0.59 

0.30 
0.25 

►State  Board  of  Health 

Dayton,  Ohio 

3.83 

0.19 

0.51 

0.20 

Washington,  D.  C 

5.12 

0.39 

0.71 

0.28 

Average  of  69  analyses 

Los  Angeles,  Cal . . . 

1.71 

1.96 

3.05 

1.22 

Eng.News,Yo\.7&,p.Q79 

Chicago,  111 

2.04 

3.81 

2.65 

0.85 

* 

*  For  Chicago  the  following  information  has  been  reported  by  Harry  F.  Towle,  General 
Foreman  in  Charge,  Bureau  of  Waste  Disposal,  Dept.  of  Public  Works,  under  date  of 
November  22,  1919: 

"Average  analysis  of  finished  tankage  shipped  during  October,  1919: 

"Moisture 5.40% 

Ammonia 2 .  78% 

Bone  phosphate  of  lime 4 .  23% 

Potash 0.94%, 

"The  garbage  grease  produced  at  this  plant  at  the  present  time  is  running  from  6  to  8% 
in  total  impurities  and  from  15  to  20%  in  free  fatty  acids.  The  analysis  on  the  last  cai 
shipped  was: 

"Total  impurities 6.73% 

Free  fatty  acids  (as  oleic) 15 .  02% 

Volatile  at  105°  C 0.70%, 

Unsaponifiable  matter 5.85% 

Petroleum  ether  insoluble 0 .  03% 

Soluble  mineral  matter 0. 15% 

Saponification  number  of  grease 186.4 

Glycerine  (combined) 8. 63%" 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


23 


1 



o    oj 

o  2               °    •        ►^ 

CQ                             '^'   "S, 

^                  oa   03                                  J-  ^ 

-2                   .c  ^                    o      •    wi       .  ^- 

E^  O 

O                       «                Cq 

d 

A 

A                                                       A 

■\     1                                                            \      f                                      \ 

0) 

03    m 

m    rn     m    m     m     m     m     V2    Vi    'fi    r^    m    Vi 

(U 

OJ      flj 

ajoojooGjoa/oooo/O 

01 

a  a 

&&&Ci.&&CC:.&P,aa.C 

rt 

a  a 

l>  l> 

bC    bC 

>      > 

<    < 

aaaaaaaaasaaa 

0303«03c303«c303c3cic3c3 
t/i    m    Vi    tn    m     ai     ui    tn    tn    !/j    Ui    m    tn 

r-oooi— iot>-cD0505ioiocoic 

i-HC^lCOCO                          0'*i-^(M 

o   o   o    o    o    o    o'o'o'o'o'o'o 

bflbCbCbCMIiCbJDbljbCbibCibCbC 
O3oirtoic3c3c3o3o3e3cja3c3 

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

S    D 
«     O 

:i 

GO    i-H 

t^Ot--'*iMt^iOt^O'*<M       -O 

m    u 

05    O 

COOiOOl^GO'-H^^t^CO       -.-H 

P   ^ 

CO  Oi 

■^OOOt^OOOiCCOOCJl       •■* 

IM    ^ 

O0C^iM'-H^CO'-i(MC^COI>       -CM 

p:!   S 

^ 

w   ^ 

CO  tn 

05<MC0C0OrHOt^05iO00OO 

_D    -^      m 

CO  CO 

OOiOOfNOlC^iCOCDt^iCCOCO 

&  - 

(M    O 

00.-it^OO^i-H(Mt^OOOOGOTt<»0 

PS    K 

m  t3 

oil 

O     rH 

0500^0500oO'-iao(Nt^t^o 

tH     I— I 

1—1                        1— 1    tH              I— 1                                           I— I 

i.    » 

<n 

»o 

Eh 

ii 

<M    O 

00l>(MCOCDI>O5(MCDO3C000(M 

»o  ^ 

(Mcococo(Mi-ico05coooiocot^ 

O 

^S  3 

lO 

—1                                  CDCOIO           t^-*i-i(N 

» 

^ 

^ 

00     „ 

3  * 

^      0) 

S  3 

05 

05 

n 

rJH    (M 

COt-IMCOOOiOOiOiCicDcOiOOi 

CO    ^ 

iC05^000(Ni-i(MO(M05(N 

O 

o  v3 

(N    Tt< 

00'^C<IC^I'-iCO(N(MC<)rHiOI>(M 

< 

O 

o 

^ 

CO 

s 

■^    CD 

00cDCD-*tO00'-<C000iC'-ir^O2 

I— 1    1—1 

,— l^iOOOt--*05CO-*C^li:001 

§ 

t^ 

1>I>I>00           i-i.-i|>.                          -^ 

V   TJ 

(-      0)      0)      (D      O)                                ^--             „    _fl 

.2 

(3 

OOOOOOO                                  CTi 

T-(i— li— li— It— li— li— 1                                           O 

tH 

LO     lO 

>0      1        1        1        1        1        1        1     CD                             1 

ca 

o  o 

005050105050503'— 1                               00 

PH 

Oi    OS 

05   O   O   O    O   O   O    O   05                        o 

T— 1      1-H 

t-H05050505050505'— i                               05 

:               8 

fl                  .22 

fe   S3   a   S     ■   OS   g 

^  .s  ^  a  o  .a  -^  = 

o                  3 

.a           s 

s.a-soS'.a^^.^           a 

24       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


S  c» 


00  c<i        CO  o 
■  to    ■  o 

O  O  <*  O  iM  °0  to 
i0iO'^<^CDC0t»O 
O  "31  O  O  «i  O  O  2 


■* 
t^ 

to 

00 

1^ 

■* 

o 

•* 

to 

oq 

50 

to 

CO 

o 

co 

;:; 

o 

o 

o 

o 

^ 

o 

o 

^ 

o 

o 

o 

-> 

-■ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

(N 

s 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

s 

o 

B 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

§ 

o 

o 

OO 
CO 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

00 

§ 

o 

o 

o 
o 

§ 

•^ 

cx> 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

B  o  to 

o3  CO  l> 

O  -Tin 
_  to  CO 


00  o 
•  to 

C3  05 


O  O  -  O  +-  05 

IM  05  S  t^  o   t^  gj 

•»^  (M  'M  iQ  ^     -^  O 

•  00  ■  1-1 


•*-*COrti-lTfl(M'*tO0000CjNlNCOCO0000 
tDt^-*0'OOOOiN01>C005>OOOOi-iiOiO 

i-iO'-<0000'-iOOOO'-iOOOO'>* 

oooooooooooooooooo 


o  o  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o  o 


o  o  o  o  o  o  o 


00   o 

o  o 
d  d 


O  lO  o  o  o 


o  o 
o  o 


< 
iz; 
< 

o 

w 

z 

W 

flH 

Q 

<) 

o 

^ 

i-H 

a 

hI 

CQ 

< 

H 

Q  C<l   (M   lO  o   to 

OlN'^tOo^'*'^^ 


^    00    05 


-*    <M    "^    O    to 


00 

CO 

CO 

iM 

o 

05 

s 

■* 
■* 

o 

■* 

IN 

o 

■* 

§ 

o 

CO 

tH 

C^l 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

^ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

B 

B 

o  : 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

_o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

B 

o 

CO 

00  • 

(N   ■ 

1^ 

o 

§ 

1> 

o 

o 

o 

§ 

o 

o 

l> 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

,-( 

O 

o  • 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

■a   M  oj   g 


•S  -Zi    '^  ''s  -Z    9.    a  S    9 


tS  -^ 


H  Ph  O  H 


H  Ph 


j3   j3 


tD  -r.   u    fi 


oT  &  a  » 


-4  — ;  _  -^  -^ 
"3  "^    03    c    c    +3 
o    o    o  —  3    o 


^   "o  J4    -u     ^    i 


&  s'H  s  as 


r;o.s.ls.sooo  —  ;3oi-,:ri-o3(j.:3ca^^iSt5t5.^aj>^ra 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


25 


01 

"O  CIO  ^  CO  I- 

CO 

-'CO 

"rt 

•  r.  ^  ci  g  -r  ci 

ij 

c:     ; 

2  a 

O  '^  CD  C^  CO 

,-(r-.r-.C-| 

t^ 

CO  o 

o 
H 

co'c^foof-'-r" '^" 

C4  CO  CO  T  C^l 

cc" 

CO 

ii 

IN 

M 

o^ 

u- 

c  t 

ojroofci^r- 

05 

l^CD 

CC  o  -I"  in  t^  tB 

c>> 

coc'i 

•/^  rt 

CC  CC  CO  O  CO  o 

l~ 

O  O  O  CO  CC  CO 

CO 

c_^ 

H^ 

t^  t  05  C>)  t^ 

o 

-l>CO 

CO  CO  t-.  CO  O  -H 

-»• 

rtrt  w 

CO 

^ 

<M— 1 

■o 

1 

■  ■-?'  »-0  •■f  O  O" 

M 

coo 

T^     i'     rr. 

•  CD  CO  « tr.  uo 

05 

CO 

-HT)<OrHC 

CC 

■*co 

Ill 

•  CO  CO  C5  CO  u; 

oc 

coo 

3 
< 

^ 

CO  .-1  (M  t^  b- 

■-(M.-( 

o 

CO 

■HO 

;  CO  cico  00  c> 

s 

■•JiCO 

til  <p 

CO      t4 

lO 

lO— 1 

m 

COLO 

CO 

c 

oo 

rt 

•  C-l  CD  CO  o  c 

"f 

COf 

«  o3 

oo 

•  CO  -1"  CD  <r.  -t 

CI 

«^ 

U 

•  O  C5  -1  CO  oc 

-i>'d 

(io 

■-H(M  ■-■ 

I^ 

_j_j 

OCD 

^ 

ccco 

?  C3 

OC^^COCC 

(N 

•^C-) 

CO  CI  n  CD  ■♦  CO 

m 

•n«n 

Oi   o 

00.-IOt^-<t 

(N 

•    ■ 

w  lO  w  CO  Tf  c- 

CI 

■fl    t! 

rtCOTtlOSC^ 

•- 

o^ 

e 

co  "O  o  t^  t 

CO 

OJ^ 

M"^ 

(N 

K 
to 

s 

c 

•* 

t^ 

T! 

o; 

"m   £3 

lO  CD  0>  CO  <»  C 

t^co 

O 

'('■HOOOO-t 

t- 

w  -t 

0)   O 

t-COC^COTt 

CT 

■    • 

o 

cococ5t^-i-c 

cr 

O-tl 

IMrHrt 

CC 

■HO 

^ 

CO  CO  O  O  CC 

CO 

t^-H 

4)    t. 

■^a-. 

to 
o 

a/ 

CD 

^  s 

^COt)<OOCOC 

OJIN 

-fi 

to  -*  o  i^  CO  c 

h- 

in 

o-^ 

i-<  lO  r- 05  c^  K" 

C3 

o 

1-1 

COCDCOrt(N(N 

ir 

pq  2 

CN  >OtJ<iOCN 

"^ 

(35^ 

z 

.MINCO- 

tir 

ooo 

C^ 

CO 

-< 

to 

=!   '   „, 

C>Jt^ 

4) 

CI 

<A 

^     n   2- 

COCO-hOOC 

cno 

J3 

•O 

1<C 

h- 

t^o 

M 

-^  ca  o3 

0501J)-*I>OC 

« 

^ 

■C) 

p- 

oo 

< 

CO 

CO  lO  t^  CD  c 

ca  —1 

^ 

3 

Pi 

do 

CO  oi  t32  O  lO  ir 

. 

o 
c^co 

S 

o  c;  t^  o  00  c 

cc 

CI  w 

coco 

o 

•*  t^  ira  ■*  IN  IT 

CT 

03 

■^  050  c^  iCC 

c 

0)  °  o 

TjHlClOTt<(N 

CS 

cow 

« 

rH  lO-^CDO- 

<^^ 

■Hr-I 

^  -§ 

C^ 

T)< 

o 

■* 

u, 

IC 

s    s 

C^  w 

-a  u 

■HCO 

rQ             -S 

CO  O:  CO -< -J  .- 

CC 

coco 

o  o 

lOt^COrMMC 

a^  ^ 

lO  ^  OCO  CO  -^ 

oc 

^  p. 

05  1NCOO-*C^ 

c 

coco 

3        O 

2;    -^ 

t^ooot^Tt 

oc 

COIN 

§a 

CO  C-)  --H  t^  or 

CC 

o 

^ 

c 

l^ 

www 

00 1»  tX)  t^  00  CC 

■* 

t^lN 
t^co 

'«'H 

t^lOOOlN  — Tt 

t- 

in 

a 

T)<O^IOCNT 

ai 

OiC05  00r(<- 

o- 

IN  CO  0>  ^  ^  ^ 

IM 

■-H  -^  lo  »o  CO  0" 

CD 

05.-1 

O 

CT 

■* 

CI 

•* 

T3 

OOiOOOlN  OOCT 

C 

(N 

cd 

m          C 

t^oOOsOt-C 

IT 

IN  (J5 

-2  (- 

Ed 

J3  w  >,^ 

(Nq^t^_-*a)_cc 

1^ 

Tj<  O  -*  Tf  CO  CC 

iOt)< 

r^'^^di'S'i 

IT 

0- 

cod 

COIN 

"*ooowcocx 

C0-*iOtJiCS 

a- 
c 

^Cl 

to 

sr     m 

CO 

o 

d^ 

< 

Lh 

CO 

j3  bC      ^ 

CO  o  Tt<  oj  CO  Tt 

C 

to  M 

mc.fi 

lO  C3  t^  (35 'H  t^ 

c 

t^-J 

NCI 

^■S  CI  S 

'H_C0iO1<^tDcC 

c^ 

■  ^ 

^  a 

t^  CO  ■* -H  CO  ■* 

(N 

OIN 

Fine 

pass 

l-i 

sere 

r-Tcocq'iN  TiTcc 

f^ 

-      lO     ■ 

Ow 
oco 

S  a 

■7  03 
■^  ft 

(NC0INC01>  — 

.-ioocoocoi> 

c 

■HCO 

Ch 

t. 

1>        », 

fol 

^H  r^  (N  c^  Tfi  t^ 

c- 

J 

2>„-S 

■H  t>  IN  (N  T)H  O 

c<- 

I— (   1— 1   T— 1 

ir 

-   O  cj 

1—lT-i   1-i 

3         O 

z    " 

/ 

T         '     ' 

■^ 

^ 

o 

o 

a 

a 

•  T! 

'.Tl 

t4 

.  03 

tH 

■  03 

(_• 

T3  O 

^ 

T3   O 

C3 

tu 

o3 

<::>. 

o  & 

ft 

.°fe 

rt 

»  to 

§ 

Q  <u 

ft  Q> 

B. 

w    03 

ft 

"o 

:3 
o 

c 

3 
o 
^1 

c 

o 

E- 

fcs 

O 

-sjpQCiQW&H 

<;PL| 

<pqdQHfe 

26       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


In  Europe  reports  on  refuse  materials  and  their  disposal  have 
been  made  by  Dr.  Thiesing  at  Charlottenburg,  Messrs.  Bohm  and 
Grohn  in  Berlin,  Dr.  Lenormond  in  Havre,  Mr.  F.  Andreas  Meyer  in 
Hamburg,  Mr.  J.  A.  Robertson  in  Greenock,  Scotland,  and  many 
others. 

Table  12. — Analyses  op  Refuse  in  Louisville,  Ky. 

(From  Report  by  Professor  J.  H.  James) 


Sample 
No. 

Composition 

Moisture, 
Percentage 

Calorific  Value  in 
B.T.u.  PER  Pound 

Material 

Percentage 
by  weight 

Wet 

Dry 

at  180°  F. 

A 

f 
B    ' 

C 

M 
M 

F 

Garbage 

Rubbish 

Ashes  and  dirt.. . 

Garbage 

Rubbish 

Ashes  and  dirt. . . 

Garbage 

73 
11 
16 

45 
14 
41 

52 
10 
38 

46 
17 
37 

41 
14 
45 

36 
6 

58 

50.50 

■  42.18 

■  40.7 

■  50.7 
50.5 

I   44.00 

3547.2 

4636.2 

3445.33 

3103.2 

3151.0 

2858.5 

7166.0 
8021.0 
5810.0 
6294.6 
6240.6 
5105.7 

Rubbish 

Ashes  and  dirt. . . 

Garbage 

Rubbish 

Ashes  and  dirt. . . 

Garbage 

Rubbish 

Ashes  and  dirt. .  . 

Garbage 

Rubbish 

Ashes  and  dirt. .  . 

Recently,  the  reports  of  the  United  States  Food  Administration 
have  given  much  valuable  information,  especially  relating  to  the 
feeding  of  garbage  to  hogs. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS  27 

D.— QUANTITIES  AND  THEIR  VARIATIONS 

Refuse  materials,  when  coming  chiefly  from  residences,  are  pro- 
duced in  varying  quantities,  the  variations  being  determined  by  the 
following  factors: 

1.  Geographical  location  of  municipality; 

2.  Season  of  the  year; 

3.  Character  of  the  population;  as  to  whether  it  is  industrial, 
residential,  rural,  etc.; 

4.  Efficiency  of  the  department  or  agency  which  collects  the  re- 
fuse materials; 

5.  Influence  of  war. 

Mr.  Edward  D.  Very*  states  that  the  average  quantity  of  New 
York  City  garbage  produced  per  capita  per  day  is  \  lb.,  and  that  the 
average  weight  is  1100  lb.  per  cu.  yd.  (41  lb.  per  cu.  ft.).  The  average 
sample  contains:  16%  animal  matter,  79%  vegetable  matter,  and 
5%  rubbish. 

It  analyzes  approximately  as  follows:  70%  moisture,  20%  tank- 
age, 3.5%  grease,  1.5%  bones,  and  5%  rubbish. 

According  to  Mr.  George  Watson,  the  total  house  refuse  in  English 
cities  amounts  to  400  (long)  tons  per  annum  per  1000  of  population 
(900  lb.  per  annum  per  head).  According  to  Codrington,  1  cu.  yd. 
of  house  refuse  weighs  from  1400  to  1700  lb. 

On  the  continent  of  Europe,  according  to  Richter,  the  total  quan- 
tity of  refuse  ranges  from  ^  to  1  liter  per  day  per  person,  and  its  specific 
gravity  varies  from  0.65  to  0.85.  If  we  assume  a  mean  of  0.75  liter, 
the  production  will  be  about  0.55  kg.  (IJ  lb.)  per  day  per  person. 

Trade  refuse  varies  chiefly  with  the  number  and  kind  of  industries 
and  the  condition  of  business.  Street  refuse  varies  in  quantity  with 
the  kind  of  pavement  and  with  the  frequency  as  well  as  the  thorough- 
ness and  method  of  cleaning.  (Chapter  XV.)  The  quantity  of  stable 
refuse  depends  on  the  number  of  horses  kept  in  the  community. 
(Chapter  XIV.) 

1.  Geographical  Location. — The  effect  of  the  geographical  location 
of  a  community  on  the  quantity  of  household  refuse  produced  is 
readily  seen  by  comparing  the  unit  productions  of  similar  cities  in 
different  locations.  Table  13  shows  the  quantities  of  garbage,  ashes, 
and  rubbish  produced  in  34  American  cities. 

In  considering  the  effect  of  geographical  location  on  the  produc- 
tion of  garbage  and  ashes,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that  the  per 
capita  quantities  of  garbage  produced  in  Southern  cities  are  larger 
than  in  the  cities  of  the  North,  because  of  the  larger  quantities  of 

*  Paper  before  Society  of  Chemical  Industry,  March  20th,  1908. 


28       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  13. — Production  of  Refuse  in  Selected  American  Cities 


City 


Baltimore,  Md .  . 
Boston,  Mass.  .  . 


Buffalo,  N.  Y . 


Cambridge,  Mass. 
Chicago,  111 


Cincinnati,  Ohio .  . 

Cleveland,  Ohio .  . 
Columbus,  Ohio .  . 


Dayton,  Ohio .  .  .  . 
Detroit,  Mich .  .  .  . 

Evanston,  111 

Kansas  City,  Mo . 
Los  Angeles,  Cal. . 


Lowell,  Mass. . . . 

Lynn,  Mass 

Milwaukee,  Wis . 


Minneapolis,  Minn 

Nashville,  Tenn .  . 
New  Bedford,  Mass 
New  York,  N.  Y 


Paterson,  N.  J..  . 
Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Pittsburgh,  Pa. . 
Rochester,  N.  Y . 


St.  Louis,  Mo. 


St.  Paul,  Minn 
San  Francisco,  Cal 
Springfield,  Mass 
Syracuse,  N.Y. . . 
Trenton  N.  J 


Troy,  N.Y... 
Washington,  D.  C 


Wilmington,  Del. 


Year 


1917 
1914-15 
1917-18 
1905 
1910 
1905 
1912 
1917 
1905 
1909 
1917 
1909 
1917 
1912 
1915 
1918 
1910 
1916 
1910 
1917 
1915-16 
1917-18 
1905 
1905 
1914 
1917 
1919 
1910 
1917 
1905 
1905 
1905 
1908 
1905 
1917 
1916 
1913 
1917 
1916 
1917 
1917 
1909 
1905 
1905 
1910 
1917-18 
1905 
1905 
1912 
1915 
1919 
1903 


Popu- 
lation 


589,621 
748,041 
781,628 
376,914 
423,715 

97,434 
2,333,687 
2,497,722 
343,337 
360,000 
410,476 
543,000 
674,073 
192,700 
210,000 
223,000 
116,577 
571,784 

24,978 
300,215 
554,000 
622,000 

94,889 

77,042 
410,000 
436,535 
457,000 
301,408 
373,458 

84,227 

74,362 

4,000,403 

4,258,387 

111,529 

1,709,518 

579,090 

235,000 

265,000 

757,309 

760,454 

247,232 

409,500 

73,540 
117,129 

96,815 
113,974 

76,271 
302,883 
341,539 
359,000 
450,000 

83,860 


Pounds  per  Capita 

PEE  Annum 


Gar- 
bage 


211 

204 
155 
131 
140 
230 
109 

80 
146 
193 
233 
165 
166 
195 
212 
139 
209 
168 
225 
299 
209 
151 

91 
223 
188 
141 
142 
154 
138 

58 
146 
164 
185 
106 
146 


244 
240 
164 
118 
118 
323 
95 
153 
270 
265 
248 
263 
292 
286 
236 
190 


Ashes 


Rub- 
bish 


960    29 
829    21 

391 

652  I   68 

1029 

700 


850 
486 


312 
364 


602 

■■•■! 

647  I  236 


927 
927 
832 


35 


109 


832 

431 

1234 

913  1  : 


1486 
1520 


70   309 
832 
913 

743  I   * 
853  I   * 

927 

482 


580 
443 


To- 
tals 


1193 

1005 

522 

860 

1259 


996 
679 


477 
559 


811 


1108 


255 

176 

1018 

1150 

1020 


185 
263 


890 

577 

1398 

1186 

1004 


1804 
1840 


702 

927 

1066 

1013 

1118 

1175 

745 

926 

810 


851 


Cubic  Feet  per  Day 
PER  1000  Population 


Gar-       Rub-  To- 
bish   tals 


13.1 
11.4 


8.2 


13.1 


10.6 


5.0 


12.9 
9.3 


21.0 


14.7 


24.6 


23.5 


17.6 


88.5 
88.5 


9.6 
7.6 


56.0 


32.6 


9.2 
5.9 


77.1 


5.5 


59.9 


28.2 
11.1 


55.5 


111.2 
107.5 


64.2 


67.1 


43.2 


155.2 


22.1 
15.2 


86.0 


147.3 


47.5  77.6 


30.1 
12.3 


75.9 


*  Included  in  garbage. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


29 


fruit  and  vegetables  consumed  there;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the 
consumption  of  coal  is  small,  the  production  of  ashes  there  is  also  small. 
The  data  for  Columbus  and  Dayton,  Ohio,  where  natural  gas  is 
available  for  fuel,  show  an  expected  falling  off  in  the  quantity  of 
ashes.  The  production  of  refuse  in  the  cities  of  Europe  is  less  than  in 
America,  as  the  people  are  less  wasteful.  The  average  per  capita 
production  of  house  refuse  in  Europe  is  approximately  380  lb.  per  year, 
as  compared  with  860  lb.  in  American  cities. 

Table   14. — Quantities  of  Garbage,   Ashes,   and   Rubbish   Delivered 

BY  City  and  Private  Collection,  and  Disposed  of  at  the 

Milwaukee  Incinerator  During  1919 


Month 

Garbage, 
in  tons 

Ashes, 
in  tons 

Rubbish, 
in  tons 

Manure, 
in  tons 

Totals, 
in  tons 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September .... 

October 

November .... 
December 

Totals 

2,302 . 12 
1,658 . 57 
1,946 .  53 
2,102.31 
2,397.98 
2,948.92 
3,477.68 
3,709  .'89 
3,633.37 
3,458.24 
2,580.47 
2,301.35 

806.41 
713.29 
879 . 16 
604.96 
581.98 
510.37 
478.92 
497.92 
600.55 
553.79 
678.32 
989.92 

202.92 
198.02 
214.58 
144.85 
122.37 
167.76 
162.74 
142.27 
148.32 
119.64 
95.10 
67.55 

0.52 
2.14 

0.50 

3,311.45 
2,569.88 
3,040.27 
2,852.12 
3,120.33 
3,627.57 
4,121.48 
4,350.08 
4,382.74 
4,131.67 
3,353.89 
3,358.82 

32,517.43 

7,895.59 

1,786.12 

3.16 

42,202.30 

All  the  garbage  of  Milwaukee  is  taken  to  the  incinerator,  but  the  ashes  and  rubbish 
from  only  a  part  of  the  city  near  the  incinerator. 


2.  Season. — There  is  a  marked  difference  in  the  quantities  of  refuse 
produced  from  one  season  to  another,  and  sometimes  from  day  to  day, 
depending  on  the  rainfall  and  the  local  conditions  of  house  treatment 
and  collection. 

Mr.  Very*  states  that  the  quantity  of  garbage  produced  varies  by 
seasons  very  materially,  with  the  maximum  during  the  summer,  when 
vegetables  and  fruits  constitute  the  principal  diet,  and  the  minimum 
during  the  winter.  August  has  usually  the  highest  record,  with  about 
11%  of  the  total,  and  February,  with  about  6%,  has  the  lowest.  The 
moisture  content  is  high  in  summer  and  low  in  winter,  whereas  the 

*  Paper  before  Society  of  Chemical  Industry,  March  20th,  1908. 


30       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


fa 
o 

< 


a 

.-10 

D       0 

^ 

otoo 

1      o 

CO      c 

3 

coc/:o 

H 

1 

05 

r-nc 

2       "/ 

3 

lOOl' 

c      a 

r. 

oco      c< 

3 

or 

3       C 

3 

cocoo      t 

, 

O) CO        00 

lU 
> 

COT 

1       c 

C0  03  0 

3       c 

3 

coc 

J       c 

) 

IO.-I04       C 

3 

01 1^      o 

coc 

D      r 

3 

OOOOr- 

^r- 

■*  rt  OS)      ^ 

COiO       '-^ 

'^ 

3 

"■ 

"  \ " 

"^ 

0 

)        0 

-1 

O) 

0 

SI 

rH         0< 

ton 

■)      -^ 

C 

CDOO 

-)      T 

f 

cct^      c 

3 

-HC 

3       - 

coot- 

-      r 

J 

OOU 

3        CO 

01 

G 

020 

^      c 

1 

t^OC< 

3 

coco      c 

3 

OC 

3 

CDOO 

1      ' 

3 

'OC 

3         lO 

(NC 

3       C 

3 

OlDCOr- 

H           C 

3 

^CD       - 

coc 

>       c 

tHOC 

si       h 

<     o 

C 

J      c- 

1 

lO 

« 

3 

r 

"* 

0 

-)       c 

3 

CO 

0 

3 

c 

s|       CO 

> 
o 

IOC 

:      a 

^OO 

3        0 

15 

cqo     0 

Q 

r^c- 

3     r- 

OOlOO 

n        r- 

_, 

'-'   T 

f       lO 

^:l^ 

:      c 

3 

0-lOP 

3        T 

1 

oooq      c 

3 

Ot 

'     T 

1 

oooc 

3      r 

s 

DC 

3       O 

CO^ 

;      c 

00  "Cr- 

3 

lOO       c 

3 

■*h 

cooo 

<1      c 

■OC 

2; 

3 

■* 

3 

-M           r- 

0 

^     p 

3 
3 

oq 

0 

^ 

H           l-H 

OOC 

3      a 

©OOI 

3              T' 

l< 

r^o 

J       0 

l^c 

3        C 

^rtCI 

3       0 

0 

OC 

3       O 

04C 

t^COC 

3     ^ 

0)C 

3        0 

1 

oo 

1         C 

rt  Tjll 

3      <r 

3 

Oc 

3       CO 

o 

^c 

■■      0 

3 

oorfi- 

coo 

IOC 

3        C 

0 

lOiOO 

)      c 

co- 

-1      t^ 

^ 

3 

"" 

■" 

^ 

0 

0 

1       ^ 

O^if 

3     r- 

OiOO 

3         -^ 

CO^ 

H       r- 

-*0( 

3        O 

■*  OS)-- 

H        h 

rf  0 

3     oq 

a 

c- 

-*oio 

r 

3 

Oih 

-       C 

Oh 

b 

Ttft^l. 

3        c 

3 

04  0 

1     M 

lo  c 

0 

00  CO^ 

3 

COh 

T 

lOC 

3         u 

•OCsjO 

1       C 

5 

OO 

3         O 

M 

■^ 

"" 

'^ 

0 

1 

^ 

Csj 

TfM 

ot 

ooo 

s      o 

CCi/ 

3        ^ 

too 

)         h 

CDiOi^ 

:     ct 

3 

oc 

0     o 

coo 

c 

Tf-HO- 

h 

CCC 

1       ir 

0- 

OOO* 

3        l 

-     t^ 

o; 

TtHC 

i> 

Xt~i- 

CC 

> 

COO 

CDc£ 

>      o 

■*coo 

1      r 

3 

oo 

3         00 

"< 

03 

^ 

o 

) 

t^o- 

c 

ooc 

c 

3       0> 

oo< 

■)       ct 

3      CD 

00  Ti 

<      c- 

loooc: 

3       O 

oq^ 

H         CO 

TSir 

IT 

M  OCv 

c 

O 

t^t- 

^- 

coc 

5        h 

oocot; 

Ol  1. 

3        t^ 

o 

N 

f~iOr- 

T 

o> 

)         r 

lOCC 

^coo 

r 

3       O 

oc 

3        O 

1-5 

W 
Q 

co 

■<j 

'■ 

d 

"      O 

o 

J       O 

o 

■"  ^ 

(D 

oor 

'J 

-^ooi 

c 

P 

O 

H 

cocc 

r 

Tl<  CSI  If 

3              T- 

'OO 

3        lO 

oo 

0 

yttoa- 

C 

G 

'OC 

thcoci: 

3              T 

'    Q 

t^c 

3        O 

3 

^tlT 

l-~ 

30  0>-- 

c 

ir 

lO  ir 

r 

Tf  ino 

O 

co.- 

00 

1-^ 

tH 

co 

Tt 

s 

"" 

•" 

ci 

■" 

o 

w 

"^ 

O 

H           --l 

. 

o 

'    Q 

>. 

^ 

ooo- 

h- 

o 

oqooc 

c 

OC' 

0- 

oc 

o 

^     c^ 

O)  ooir 

s      ir 

3     o 

^         O 

1^  .- 

<      00 

-1  h- 

CT 

i-ir^co 

c 

o. 

r>i) 

0 

o^cc 

0 

3       00 

■^ 

1-5 

-0"- 

a 

Xl^i- 

Tt<C 

IOCS 

h- 

^OCs 

ir 

'OO 

t> 

(H 

lO 

CC 

&■ 

"" 

'~ 

Sq 

Cv 

CS 

Oi 

c- 

I-H 

o 

-< 

1-5 

. 

f! 

■ 

n 

-».- 

o 

S 

NOOC 

c 

•-N 

T 

t^C 

r- 

Ttioqc 

r 

< 

•rrr 

"* 

a 

,0^ 

-Ht>o: 

Ov 

NCC 

c 

oc 

c 

ooc 

M< 

to 

0)nr 

JOOO-- 

oc 

-*.- 

d 
o 

Tfl    1/ 

OS 

^3o^  cs 

0 

lOu- 

O 

M 

lO 

CC 

■- 

OJ 

0- 

oq 

OS 

oq 

o 

00 
CO 

o_ 

CO 

-  8 

XCO 

Tt< 

ooooc 

CO 

rtTt- 

■  r 

10  <- 

"0 

-(  lO  IT 

ait^ 

lO 

■o.- 

lO 

o 

O  OiCO 

or 

OC 

CC 

OS 

t^ 

N  t^  t^ 

i-> 

1^.- 

o 

P, 

MO- 

^^ 

tr 

^  ir 

0 

-*(  CO.- 

'; 

?oc 

CO 

0 

o 

CO 

I> 

^ 

I— 

» 

OS 

OS 

oq 

0- 

OS 

oq 

<! 
O 

o 

02 
O 

m 

Q 

H 

O) 

TJ( 

"      Z 

r-lh- 

<r 

oooo- 

t-- 

«) 

^1- 

or 

oc- 

r 

. 

t^OOCS 

h- 

00  I- 

o 

oq<T 

oooc; 

CC 

^ir 

OS 

^-^ 

-^rHCO 

Cs 

oq 

P^ 

M0( 

jooq  .- 

0^ 

H 

■< 

^3C'- 

t> 

I-I 

tHO-- 

CC 

Tt<C 

i> 

(N 

CO 

b 

"" 

-       ►J 

^ 

Tt 

< 

CO 

OS 

oq 

oor 

CO 

^ooc 

•<J 

o 

jOir 

T-4 

§ 

-(C- 

oot- 

OJ 

f; 

Tt<OS 

CO 

04  Ov 

>c 

10  on  CO 

DO 

C 

rt  cs 

C^ 

C:  CS|  T 

h- 

OC 

oq 

0)(- 

o: 

)0O'- 

oc 

o- 

TflCC 

<r 

O-^.- 

N 

?3C<- 

t^ 

(N 

(N 

r* 

"" 

<N 

CO 

co 

CO 

OS 

oq 

•  ^ 

•-C 

•^ 

•-C 

•  r 

■  r 

•  r 

0 

■  r 

^ 

-C 

? 

X 

c: 

^ 

"3 

: 

c 

;- 

c 

.  t- 

r 

C 

•T 

S 

i- 

't: 

S- 

■-r 

t- 

1- 

'x 

H 

ni  C 

r 

qj 

r>   C 

0,  fi 

OJ 

0)  C 

hn « 

h 

M 

M 

bll  '■'■ 

n  <i 

III 

gf 

03   cD'r 
111 

S^ 

isi? 

S-S 

S^ 

^<! 

;3<^rt 

3< 

0<r 

0<K 

o< 

REFUSE  MATERIALS 


31 


oo 

o 

oo 

o 

TttiZ, 

Ol 

■n  CO  « 

Ol 

^■■»t< 

(N 

' 

oJo 

a> 

oo^ 

o 

\r~-^n 

m 

0«D 

t- 

t^ira 

IN 

too 

b- 

COCIC2 

X 

U3C0 

M 

t-C<l 

o 

00 -fi 

iN 

t^osro 

c 

(N 

ro 

c^ 

ro 

•"^ 

ro 

ION 

t^ 

MCD 

00 

•^00 

CM 

t^inc-i 

-t 

OS-* 

n 

rooo 

IN  in 

00 

rot^os 

o 

■*00 

K 

coro 

o 

t^CO 

ro 

t^roci 

-* 

(N 

ro 

ro 


rj< 

CM 

ro 

oo 

o 

0>(M 

^ 

00  00 

CO 

Cl  OCD 

00 

CO-*l 

o 

MrH 

lO 

COCO 

ro 

ooin 

m 

TjtCO 

too 

to 

Mt-. 

CO 

oooro 

'^ 

C<l 

o^ 

IT) 

ro 

CM 

ro 

O'O 

-f 

OO 

o 

OOO 

« 

coooo 

CO 

IN  O 

CCj 

t~ro 

mo 

m 

ooroco 

oc 

•OIN 

t^ 

02  02 

02 

.-ICS 

o 

o-.roi< 

t^ 

C-) 

ro 

CM 

t^CO 

o 

TftO 

o 

•*o 

•* 

t^-rm 

., 

00  00 

t- 

05t^ 

1^ 

■^<c» 

C>) 

CO  in  00 

O 

lO 

to 

Ot^ 

00 

ro -JO 

CM 

rtt>in 

m 

IN 

^^ 

ro 

CM 

t-iO 

IM 

OtO 

in 

02t~- 

CD 

oorooo 

02 

T»<CO 

c» 

l^C: 

t^ 

I>00 

CO 

00t--H 

t^ 

CD 

to 

05<M 

C-1 

■-itH 

CD 

OS  CO  CO 

CM 

Ol 

ro 

CM 

CO 

C-t 

COIM 

00 

■*ro 

t^ 

ot- 

t- 

GOioro 

CO 

CO-H 

Tf 

00^ 

o; 

■-HTJH 

in 

o 

moo 

CO 

to 

to 

00  rl 

02 

OS'JH 

m 

OS 

oooom 

o 

o 

CM 

CM 

a> 

Oi 

Tt<lO 

o> 

l^Oi 

CD 

02  0! 

00 

roooi^ 

CM 

OJO 

03 

INTO 

CD 

00  <N 

rfOcO 

ro 

lO-H 

CD 

ooo 

00 

00  If 

T^ 

oot^-* 

O 

o 

c^ 

C' 

o 

CM 

ro 

H 

w 

in 

Q 

Q 

o 

(MOO 

O 

i 

too 

o 

i 

inc 

in 

a> 

ooo  CO 

■* 

ooo 

a> 

l>  lO 

C<l 

CD  •> 

cc 

m^co 

M 

n<iM 

CO 

t>ro 

t^-* 

t^cOM 

t^ 

OJ 

m 

Ttl 

OS 

(N 

ro 

r 

Cl 

ro 

s 

^(N 

CO 

to  00 

Il< 

z 

inw 

h- 

o 

osroro 

m 

OiO 

■* 

IMOO 

coo- 

ot-co 

•* 

TfCC 

00 

i>t- 

iC 

< 

t-N 

C 

l>COC^l 

CO 

•-3 

(N 

ro 

•^ 

C<1 

ro 

<o 
o 
os_ 

CM 

ro 

r^co 

02 

t^ 

rHlO 

o 

lO 

i-KN 

ro 

in" 

CMOS'* 

m 

.-ii> 

00 

l->. 

Tt*ro 

00 

Tt<CD 

o 

CM 

02CMt> 

OS 

^iC 

02 

O 

t^O 

CD 

00 

CD  CD 

ro 

^OSCM 

CO 

CO 

IN 

ro 

CD 

N 

ro 

o 

CM 

ro 

OS 

cooc 

^ 

. 

05>0 

'^i 

^ 

t^ro 

o 

B 

o 

C-102CM 

ro 

cocc 

o 

^; 

O2  00 

00 

o 

rot-- 

i-~mt-- 

o 

rote 

c 

Q 

TfiCT- 

■* 

^ 

lOOC 

■* 

romrq 

CM 

H 

>< 

"^ 

c^ 

2 

M 

CM 

ro 

« 

CM 

M 

<! 

K 

•*cr 

ro 

Q 

t^lN 

o- 

H 

.-iin 

CD 

^ 

TjH^l^ 

ooN 

00  00 

to 

Tt<C 

-* 

rocMcD 

CM 

cote 

c 

loro 

o- 

coo- 

B) 

mcocM 

Tf 

(N 

e-i 

ro 

Tti 

2 

CM 

|ro 

~T 

fC 

H 

^ 

-c 

X 

-c 

'2 

J2 

'£. 

IS 

3 

X 

"r 

X 

"c 

t-< 

"cS 

t3 

^ 

C 

c 

a 

"c 

O 

-c 

E- 

-c 

E- 

b- 

t^ 

(P  c 

d  C 

<u 

(U 

X 

M  o: 

bfl  ci 

M 

M 

0]   a- 

03      y 

03  „ 

X!  I. 

J2  a 

Xt  a. 

S^ 

S-^ 

^i 

C 

<; 

C 

< 

c 

<l 

o< 

p: 

O  oo 

2S 


y,l 


>Ti 


'  ttj 

w-« 

CJ 

H 

O 

:« 

ooo 

aj 

oo 

r/j02 

>. 

6>;^ 

■<  03 

.•s 

m 

S    . 

««-■ 

e  A 

U 

c 
o 

fr.  M 

a 

e 

-1 

-1^ 

So°«2 

m-H'S*2 

°««-ro 
o^-2o? 


M«.s.SJ=-g.H7^o3  «-;-< 

1 1  Si  u.  I  a-g^^^ 

^  «:^^  So  g  gi3  g  §  i 


n 

3  O 

»'~5T3 

fe 

*  o 

HaO 

OJ     . 

1-? 

n^j 

bi)-4-> 

32       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

grease  content  and  the  chemical  plant  food  values  are  low  in  summer 
and  high  in  winter. 

The  seasonal  variations  in  the  production  of  household  refuse  are 
shown  in  Table  6  for  West  New  Brighton,  N.  Y.,  Table  14  for  Mil- 
waukee, Wis.,  Table  42  for  Shanghai,  China,  Table  45  for  Charlotten- 
burg,  Germany,  and  Table  46  for  Barmen,  Germany. 

The  seasonal  effect  on  the  chemical  composition  of  garbage  in 
Washington  D.  C,  is  shown  in  Table  34. 


-1-         X 

•7                                            -^^^                 it 

'                   z      ^                                                ± 

>             \ 

Z             5 

J                  A^ 

R  i                              i{                                               ^^' 

\          /                         X^ 

^   ^                       -X^^ 

\   r                           ',^> 

^                           \^            4 

K                                   JyL                         _Lo 

8^              -L                             ^                                 ^ 

™                                              ^C'V                X"?-                                            ''        v^ 

R                      v'^   ^^        ,-,     /  y^ 

§                       "^^  'X      J'-"-J-/f^ 

%X                                                              V~                   ^\       TO,.      /                       / 

^                       7     "^^      ^^^^^a1      .^ 

c         SX^ 

J              v.- 

7                                   ^°v 

^^     ^^           ^ilt 

c..-'^^  r^fe        ^^            .'?f-,. 

7ilN^'-'^^'^^           ^           /^^^^TL 

yS^"'^                \^    ^K-          -.^    -L       \ 

2                    ^^^%                  ^Jfl^-^k^-<^--%^"^'              i            \- 

2           ^0      .^.'L,'  ^^-^^      ^•>         rs> 

"''^^-    ^-M 

-\-             :t        22^ 

s     4     ►^ 


Q      4 


Fig.  4. — Average  Monthly  Percentages  of  Grease  in  Raw  Garbage  in  Several 

American  Cities. 


Figs.  3  and  4  and  Table  15  present  data  as  to  the  quantities  of  gar- 
bage, ashes,  and  rubbish  in  a  number  of  American  cities,  in  pounds  per 
1000  population  per  day. 

Table  16  gives  the  production  of  refuse  for  Winnetka  and  Glencoe, 
111.,  for  summer  and  winter,  and  Fig.  5  shows  the  monthly  variations, 
by  weight,  in  the  components  of  household  refuse  in  the  West  New 
Brighton  District. 

3.  Character  of  Population. — The  effect  of  the  character  of  the 
population  on  the  quantities  of  refuse  produced  is  seen  by  comparing, 
in  the  same  city,  different  districts  having  different  general  char- 
acteristics. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


33 


Boston  is  divided  into  a  number  of  general  sanitary  districts. 
Statistics  showing  the  quantities  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  pro- 
duced in  these  districts  are  given  in  Table  17.  For  Chicago,  where 
each  ward  has  its  own  collection  service,  the  quantities  of  garbage, 
ashes,  and  rubbish,  in  pounds  per  capita  per  annum,  are  given  in 
Table  18.  Table  19  has  been  compiled  from  the  report  of  the  Census 
Bureau  on  Statistics  of  Cities  for  1909,  the  production  of  refuse  being 
classified  as  from  manufacturing  and  from  residential  cities. 


Table  16. — Refuse  Materials  in  Winnetka  and  Glencoe,  III. 

Quantities  in  tons  per  day 

Actual  quantities  for  1912 

Estimated  quantities  for  1920 


Year 

Total  Population, 

Winnetka 

and  Glencoe 

Materials 

Summer 

Winter 

Annual 
Averages 

1912 
1920 

5853 
(Actual) 

9000 
(Estimated) 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

4.40 
2.93 
1.47 

2.93 
16.12 

1.47 

3.50 

11.73 

1.47 

8.80 

6.84 
4,49 
2.25 

20.52 

4.49 

24.79 

2.25 

16.70 

5.39 

18.01 

2.25 

13.58 

31.53 

25.65 

Notes. — Manure  and  tin  cans  are  not  included. 

Garbage  as  collected,  weighs  about  1000  lb.  per  cu.  yd. 
Ashes,  as  collected,  weigh  about  1200  lb.  per  cu.  yd. 
Rubbish,  as  collected,  weighs  about  160  lb.  per  cu.  yd. 


There  is  a  larger  production  of  garbage  in  residential  than  in  man- 
ufacturing cities,  and  in  the  wealthier  than  in  the  poorer  districts  of 
average  cities.  On  the  other  hand,  the  unit  quantities  of  ashes  pro- 
duced may  be  larger  in  manufacturing  cities,  although  this  does  not 
appear  in  the  table,  because  the  quantities  given  do  not  include  steam 
ashes  produced  in  the  factories. 

The  effect  of  different  nationalities,  in  the  same  community,  on  the 
quantity  of  house  refuse  produced  is  shown  in  Table  20.  This  has 
been  taken — with  some  modifications — from  a  report  of  the  Chicago 
Bureau  of  Streets,  made  by  the  Efficiency  Division  of  the  Chicago  Civil 
Service  Commision  in  1913.     Other  cities  show  similar  results. 


34       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Washington  has  long  been  noted  for  its  high  per  capita  garbage  pro- 
duction. This  does  not  indicate  extreme  wastefulness;  the  true  cause 
is  the  complete  elimination  of  the  private  collectors,  and  the  inclusion 
of  the  garbage  produced  by  the  city's  large  floating  population,  while 
determining  the  per  capita  production  on  the  basis  of  Washington's 
permanent  population. 


Fig.  5. — Monthly  Variations,  by  Weight,  in  Components  of  Household  Refuse, 
West  New  Brighton  District. 


4.  Departmental  Efficiency. — It  is  important  to  note  that,  in  all 
recorded  quantities  of  refuse  materials,  the  energy  and  thoroughness 
with  which  the  work  of  collection  is  conducted  has  a  marked  effect 
on  the  record.  An  energetic  and  skillful  official  will  increase  the  unit 
quantities  of  refuse  collected.  The  different  kinds  of  pavement,  as 
well  as  the  character,  thoroughness,  and  frequency  of  cleaning,  and, 
also,  the  introduction  of  flushing,  have  a  material  influence  on  the 
o.uantity  of  street  refuse. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


35 


Table  17. — Puoduction  of  Refuse  in  Different  Distkicts  of  Boston. 
In  Pounds  per  1000  Population.    310  Working  Days 

(Data  are  from  Annual  Reports) 


Year 

Materials 

District  N(j. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8&9 

10 

11 

1912-13 
1914-15 
1915-16 
1916-17 
1917-18 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals .... 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

484 

2179 

6 

334 
2425 

421 
2375 

709 

3520 

13 

795 

3808 

2 

573 
3441 

526 

2341 

9 

1154 

4665 

378 

543 

4480 

111 

1606 
2710 

2669 

386 

1835 

24 

2759 

370 
2420 

2796 

366 
2210 

4242 

964 

4450 

56 

4605 

970 
3750 

4014 

645 

3160 

74 

2876 

582 

2235 

33 

6197 

1025 

4275 

352 

5134 

623 

3925 

103 

3316 

40S 
2100 

2245 

438 

1910 

11 

2790 

348 
2230 

2576 

368 
2100 

5470 

1028 
4110 

38 

4720 

958 

3745 

25 

3879 

641 
3120 

38 

2850 

578 

2365 

34 

5652 

1027 

4140 

327 

4651 

538 
3630 

72 

2505 

521 
1890 

2359 

404 

1875 

18 

2578 

298 
2100 

2468 

421 
2043 

5176 

963 
4260 

4728 

822 

3160 

34 

3799 

530 

2850 
44 

2977 

504 

1864 

33 

5494 

981 

3760 

370 

4240 

492 

3440 

145 

2411 

574 
1765 

2297 

385 

1590 

13 

2398 

216 
2190 

2464 

365 
1615 

5223 

572 
4320 

4016 

649 

3420 

40 

3424 

562 
2320 

2401 

435 

1980 

37 

5111 

691 

3720 

250 

4077 

534 

3690 

166 

2339 

388 
2160 

1988 

2406 

1980 

4892 

4109 

2882 

2452 

4661 

3490 

2548 

The  character  of  the  districts  is  as  follows: 

1.  Mixed  business  and  commercial 

2.  Mixed  business  and  commercial. 

3.  All  classes. 

4.  Residential. 

5.  Residential. 


6.  Residential. 

7.  Middle-class  residential. 
8  and  9.   Residential. 

10.  Mixed. 

11.  High-class  residential. 


36       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table    18. — Effect  op  Character  of   Population   on   Production   of 
Refuse  in  the  Different  Wards  of  Chicago,  1912 

(Pounds  per  capita  per  annum) 


Ward 

Garbage 

Ashes  and 
rubbish 

Character  of  population 

1 

89 

978 

Commercial 

2 

160 

905 

Commercial  and  manufacturing 

3 

148 

669 

Mixed 

4 

107 

604 

Manufacturing 

5 

75 

374 

Mixed 

6 

113 

492 

Residential 

.     7 

110 

711 

Residential 

8 

45' 

3* 

Mixed 

9 

55. 

5* 

Mixed 

10 

77 

532 

Manufacturing 

11 

70 

578 

Manufacturing 

12 

73 

364 

Manufacturing 

13 

158 

686 

Residential 

14 

107 

604 

Mixed 

15 

138 

581 

Residential 

16 

81 

485 

Manufacturing  and  commercial 

17 

101 

477 

Manufacturing  and  commercial 

18 

126 

892 

Commercial 

19 

80 

698 

Commercial 

20 

111 

939 

Commercial 

21 

116 

1176 

Residential 

22 

77 

649 

Residential  and  commercial 

23 

148 

810 

Residential 

24 

115 

633 

Mixed 

25 

146 

568 

Residential 

26 

136 

670 

Mixed,  chiefly  residential 

27 

67 

270 

Undeveloped 

28 

101 

509 

Mixed 

29 

55 

340 

Undeveloped 

30 

126 

582 

Mixed 

31 

143 

530 

Mixed 

32 

114 

570 

Residential 

33 

121 

422 

Residential 

34 

104 

570 

Residential  and  commercial 

35 

126 

477 

Mixed 

*  Garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  collected  together, 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


37 


A  better  service  secures  a  more  thorough  collection.  During  a 
4-year  term,  as  Health  Commissioner  of  Milwaukee,  Dr.  G.  A.  Bading 
increased  the  quantity  of  garbage  collected  by  approximately  62%, 
the  corresponding  increase  of  population  being  about  12%,  and 
the  increased  cost  of  collection  being  about  17%.     The  effect  of  the 

Table  19. — Refuse  Production  in  New  England,  1909, 
IN  Manufacturing  and  Residential  Cities 


Pounds  per  1000 

Percentage  by 

Population  per  Day 

Weight 

City 

Popula- 
tion 

1 

Ashes 

Ashes 

Garbage 

and 

Total 

Garbage      and        Total    | 

rubbish 

rubbish 

Manufacturing  cities: 

New  Bedford 

92,718 

477 

2939 

3416 

14.0 

86.0 

100.0 

Lynn 

87,166 

538 

3494 

4032 

13.3 

86.7 

100.0 

Lawrence 

83,096 

256 

2594 

2850 

9.0 

91.0 

100.0 

Manchester 

68,904 

59 

3141 

3200 

1.8 

98.2 

100.0 

Taunton 

Averages 

33,678 

173 

971 

1144 

15.2 

84.8 

100.0 

301 

2628 

2929 

10.3 

89.7 

100.0 

Residential  cities: 

Cambridge 

103,531 

987 

4342 

5329 

18.5 

81.5 

100.0 

Somerville 

75,830 

601 

4232 

4833 

12.5 

87.5 

100.0 

Maiden 

43,280 

297 

2690 

2987 

9.9 

90.1 

100.0 

Everett 

32,712 

579 

1473 

2052 

28.3 

71.7 

100.0 

Newton 

39,280 

598 

4989 

5587 

10.7 

89.3 

100.0 

Averages 

612 

3545 

4157 

14.7 

85.3 

100.0 

Computed  from  Table  No.  12  of  Census  Bureau  Report,  General  Statistics  of  Cities, 
1909,  and  with  the  following  values: 

1  cu.  yd.  garbage  =  1200  lb.  1  cu.  yd.  rubbish  =   200  lb. 

1  cu.  yd.  ashes       =13.50  lb.  1  cu.  yd.  ashes  and  rubbish  =1000  lb. 


quality  of  the  service  is  seen  clearly  in  Chicago,  when  comparing  the 
quantity  of  refuse  produced  in  wards  having  better  service  with  those 
in  which  the  service  is  poorer  (Table  21).  During  the  period  cov- 
ered by  the  records,  the  superintendents  in  Wards  2,  15,  23,  31,  and 
24  were  reported  as  giving  the  more  efficient  service. 

5.  Influence  of  the  War. — At  some  newly  constructed  army  camps, 
(1917),  the  production  of  garbage  amounted  to  about  300  lb.  per 


38       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  20. — Effect  of  Nationality  on  Production  of  Refuse  in  Chicago, 
1912.     Quantities  in  Pounds  per  Capita  per  Annum 


. 

Ashes 

Weight  of 

Ward 

Principal 

Garbage 

and 

Totals 

garbage, 

Nationality 

rubbish 

in  pounds 
per  cubic  foot 

American 

2 

American 

161 

905 

1066 

44.3 

3 

133 

669 

802 

45.2 

4 

108 

644 

752 

38.0 

5 

74 

374 

448 

39.9 

6 

108 

492 

600 

45.7 

7 

107 

711 

818 

44.9 

9 

555 

555 

13 

159 

683 

842 

40.3 

14 

107 

604 

711 

42.6 

18 

125 

892 

1017 

35.9 

21 

118 

1176 

1294 

38.7 

23 

144 

810 

954 

37.9 

25 

146 

568 

714 

37.5 

26 

136 

670 

800 

37.6 

29 

55 

340 

395 

40.4 

30 

126 

582 

708 

45.6 

31 

143 

530 

673 

40.8 

32 

113 

570 

683 

38.0 

33 

122 

422 

544 

37.9 

34 

104 

570 

674 

41.9 

35 

Averages .  .  . 

126 

477 

603 

37.6 

120.7 

630.7 

745.7 

40.5 

Foreign 

1 

Italian 

87 

978 

1065 

38.1 

19 

" 

80 

698 

778 

38.4 

22 

" 

77 

649 

726 

36.3 

8 

Polish 

459 

459 

11 

(  c 

"69 

578 

647 

39'9 

16 

1 1 

81 

485 

566 

37.3 

17 

i  i 

101 

477 

578 

39.7 

27 

I  i 

67 

270 

337 

36.2 

28 

i  t 

102 

509 

617 

33.5 

10 

Bohemian 

77 

532 

609 

37.5 

12 

" 

72 

364 

436 

43.7 

15 

German 

137 

581 

718 

40.1 

24 

1 1 

114 

633 

747 

35.8 

20 
Averages .  . . 

Russian 


112 

939 

1051 

36.9 

90.5 

582.3 

666.3 

39.5 

Averages     f( 

jr      American 

and  Foreig 

n 

108.8 

611.3 

713.9 

40.1 

REFUSE  MATERIALS 


39 


capita  per  year,  or  about  50%  more  than  a  natural  city  production. 
One  reason  for  the  increase  was  that  all  the  garbage  was  actually  col- 
lected, whereas,  in  many  cities,  the  collection  service  sometimes  does 
not  reach  the  entire  population.  The  producers  of  garbage  in  army 
camps  are  able-bodied  men  and  large  eaters,  when  compared  with  an 

Table  21. — Results  op  Collection  Service  in  Ten    Chicago  Waios, 

IN  1912 


Ward 

Pounds  per  1000 
Population  per  Day 

Number  of  Collections  per  Weep 

Garbage 

Ashes  and 
rubbish 

Garbage 

Ashes  and  rubbish 

Winter 

Summer 

Winter 

Summer 

Wards  with  More  Efficient  Service 

2 
15 
23 
31 

24 

Averages . 

518 
484 
465 
466 
440 

2550 
1600 
2140 
1465 
1740 

6 
2 
2 

1 
2 

6 
2 
2 
2 
2-3 

1-2 

1 

1 
1-2 

3 

1 
1 
1 
1 

2 

475 

1899 

2.6 

2.8-3.0 

1.4-1.8 

1.2 

Wards  with  Less  Efficient  Service 

5 
11 
25 

27 
29 

Averages . 

240 
222 

218 
218 
178 

1020 

1430 

1720 

743 

938 

2 
6 
2 
1 
2 

3 

6 
2 
2 
2 

2 
6 
2 
3 

2 

2 
6 
2 
2-3 
2 

215 

1170 

2.6 

3.0 

3.0 

2.8-3.0 

average  city  population,  including  women  and  children.  These  facts 
also  account  somewhat  for  a  larger  quantity  of  garbage  being  produced. 
During  the  war  (1917-19)  a  number  of  unusual  factors  in  the  cities 
also  tended  to  alter  the  normal  production  of  refuse  materials.  Among 
these  influences  were  the  very  active  educational  work  of  the  United 
States  Food  Administration,  the  relatively  high  prices  of  all  food 


40       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


materials,  and  the  difficulty,  on  the  part  of  public  officials,  in  securing 
sufficient  and  efficient  help  to  remove  thoroughly  all  the  refuse  usually 
collected.  The  net  result  of  these  factors  was  an  average  reduction 
of  a  little  less  than  10%  in  the  per  capita  quantity  of  garbage  collected. 
(Table  22.)  With  reference  to  the  gradual  per  capita  reduction  of 
garbage  in  the  army  camps,  see  also  Chapter  IX,  page  307. 

Table  22. — Garbage  Collected  in  Eighteen  Cities  During  the  Year 

Ending  April,  1918,  Compared  with  Collections  for  the  Year 

Ending  April,  1917.     Showing  Decreased  Production 

During  War  Time 


City 

Popula- 
tion 

Tons  of  Garbage 

Pounds  per 
Capita 

1917-18 

Collections 

compared 

with 

1916-17, 

the  latter 

taken  as 

100 

1916-1917 

1917-1918 

1916- 
1917 

1917- 
1918 

Baltimore,  Md 

Boston,  Mass 

Bridgeport,  Conn .... 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

Cleveland,  Ohio 

Columbus,  Ohio 

Dayton,  Ohio 

Detroit,  Mich 

Grand  Rapids,  Mich. . 
Indianapolis,  Ind .... 

I;0S  Angeles,  Cal 

New  Bedford,  Mass . . 

New  York,  N.  Y 

Philadelphia,  Pa 

Pittsburgh,  Pa 

Rochester,  N.  Y 

Toledo,  Ohio 

Washington,  D.  C.  .  . 

Totals  and  averages .  . 

593,000 
781,628 
172,113 
416,300 
674,073 
220,000 
155,000 
750,000 
140,000 
271,758 
600,000 
118,158 
5,377,456 
1,709,518 
579,090 
275,000 
220,000 
400,000 

37,915 
52,650 
19,897 
40,692 
59,708 
20,393 
16,621 
72,785 
8,678 
23,267 
51,062 
10,162 
487,451 
101,678 
73,758 
30,782 
23,971 
46,293 

24,685 

46,335 

18,166 

34,103 

55,466 

17,295 

15,677 

64,270 

7,359 

19,929 

47,345 

8,774 

445,237 

114,160 

72,612 

25,926 

22,180 

46,732 

128 
135 
231 
195 
177 
185 
214 
194 
124 
171 
170 
172 
182 
119 
255 
224 
218 
232 

117 
118 
211 
164 
164 
157 
202 
172 
105 
147 
158 
148 
166 
134 
251 
189 
201 
234 

91.5 

88.0 
91.3 
83.8 
92.9 
84.8 
94.3 
88.3 
84.8 
85.6 
92.7 
86.3 
91.3 

112.3* 
98.4 
84.2 
92.5 

100.9 

13,453,094 

1,177,763 

1,096,251 

175 

163 

93.1 

*  Doubtful. 

The  recent  reduction  in  the  quantities  of  garbage  in  our  cities  and 
the  effect  on  the  methods  of  disposal  are  discussed  in  an  article  by  Mr. 
I.  S.  Osborn  in  the  American  Journal  of  Public  Health,  of  May,  1918,  from 
which  most  of  the  notes  in  the  following  paragraph  have  been  taken : 


REFUSE  MATERIALS  41 

One  effect  of  the  war  on  the  production  of  city  garbage  was  a 
general  decrease  in  the  quantity  per  capita;  another  was  a  decrease  in 
its  recoverable  elements,  and  still  another  was  a  tendency  to  adopt 
disposal  methods  effecting  better  conservation  of  the  valuable  mater- 
ials contained  in  the  garbage.  The  increased  prices  of  foodstuffs  and 
the  conservation  movement  started  by  the  United  States  Food  Admin- 
istration naturally  caused  a  decrease  in  the  quantity  of  garbage  pro- 
duced. Reports  from  about  sixty  cities  show  that  during  1917  there 
was  an  average  decrease  of  from  12  to  15%  in  the  quantity  of  garbage 
collected,  though  in  a  few  cities  there  was  an  increase.  In  some  cases 
the  returns  indicated  an  excessive  decrease,  but  a  studj'^  of  the  local 
conditions  revealed  the  fact  that  in  such  cases  less  attention  had  been 
given  to  the  collection,  or  that  more  private  persons  had  been  col- 
lecting the  garbage  for  feeding  hogs,  because  of  the  high  price  of  pork. 
There  was  also  a  slight  increase  in  the  price  of  some  of  the  by-products 
recoverable  by  reduction. 

In  Cincinnati,  during  the  war,  the  production  of  garbage  was 
reduced  by  about  16%,  and  there  was  a  still  greater  reduction  in 
the  grease  content. 

The  decrease  in  food  waste  is  indicated  more  surely  by  the  reduced 
quantity  of  grease  recovered  than  by  the  actual  quantities  of  garbage 
produced.  Although  the  quantity  of  garbage  may  not  continue  to 
decrease,  there  is  little  doubt  that  the  percentage  of  recoverable  grease 
is  gradually  diminishing.  Meats  are  the  chief  source  of  grease  in 
garbage,  and  data  from  reduction  works  for  a  9-month  period  in  1917 
show  a  decrease  of  30%  in  the  grease  recovered,  as  compared  with  a 
similar  period  in  1916,  and  the  actual  quantity  per  ton  of  garbage 
shows  a  reduction  of  about  15  per  cent.  This  decreased  production 
will  probably  continue  for  several  years,  due  to  the  recent  more 
frugal  habits  formed  by  the  American  people,  who  are  gradually  ap- 
proaching European  habits  in  preparing  or  conserving  their  food;  and 
in  some  cities  there  may  be  a  permanent  re-adjustment  of  conditions 
relating  to  changed  methods  of  disposal. 

There  has  also  been  created  a  greater  tendency  to  adopt  disposal 
methods  which  conserve  more  of  the  valuable  portions  of  garbage, 
and  to  abandon  wasteful  methods. 

The  method  of  disposal  by  feeding  to  hogs  has  spread  to  many 
cities.  With  pork  at  the  recent  prices,  garbage,  when  disposed  of  by 
feeding,  will  produce  from  $7  to  $8  in  value  for  each  ton.  Thus,  for 
communities  where  the  garbage  can  be  properly  collected  and  con- 
trolled, no  other  method  of  disposal  shows  equally  high  returns. 

Notwithstanding  the  decreased  per  capita  quantity  of  garbage  and 
grease,  the  larger  cities  may  still  find  the  reduction  processes  economi- 


42        COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

cal  for  some  time.  The  decrease  in  the  quantities  of  grease  and  tank- 
age have  been  offset,  to  a  large  extent,  by  their  increased  values.  The 
recent  saving  tendencies  may  nevertheless  remain  for  some  time, 
and  the  public  will  probably  no  longer  waste  as  much  as  formerly 
through  the  medium  of  the  garbage  can. 

The  decrease  in  the  quantity  of  garbage  in  St.  Paul,  Minn.,  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that,  in  1916,  12,000  tons  were  collected,  and  only 
7,215  tons  in  1918.  The  general  influence  of  the  war  is  shown  by  the 
diagram.  Fig.  6,  taken  from  the  Municipal  Journal  and  Public  Works 
of  August  9th,  1919. 

To  ascertain  the  effect  of  high  food  prices  in  New  York  City  on  the 
three  kinds  of  refuse,  the  Department  of  Street  Cleaning  computed  the 
collected  material  on  a  monthly  average  for  the  Boroughs  of  Man- 
hattan, Brooklyn,  and  The  Bronx.  Comparing  1916  and  1917,  the 
garbage  decreased  2114  cart  loads,  and  the  rubbish  4923  cart  loads 
per  month,  whereas  there  was  an  increase  of  4742  cart  loads  of  ashes. 

E— PROPORTIONS  OF  CONSTITUENT  MATERIALS 

The  relative  proportions  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  which 
make  up  the  household  refuse  are  particularly  important,  because  of 
their  deciding  influence  on  the  equipment  required  for  the  collection 
service  and  on  the  method  of  final  disposal.  The  proportions  vary  in 
different  communities,  in  geographical  locations,  and  even  in  different 
districts  of  the  same  city,  as  already  indicated.  Cities  in  the  warm 
climates  of  the  South  produce  less  ash;  therefore  the  proportion  of 
garbage  and  rubbish  in  the  total  refuse  is  greater.  The  seasonal 
variations  have  similar  effects;  the  proportion  of  garbage,  as  well  as 
its  total  quantity,  is  greater  in  summer  than  during  other  seasons. 
Also,  the  character  of  the  population  has  its  effect.  Among  the 
lower  classes  a  separation  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  is  fovmd 
difficult  to  obtain,  and  the  recorded  proportion  of  garbage  is 
therefore  less  than  in  wealthier  districts.  When  garbage  is  collected 
by  one  department  and  ashes  and  rubbish  by  another,  the  propor- 
tionate quantities  of  each  may  vary  from  one  administration  to 
another,  as  the  efficiency  of  the  collecting  department  increases  or 
decreases.  The  variations  in  the  relative  quantities  of  these  materials 
in  house  refuse  shows  the  importance  of  knowing  thoroughly  the 
detailed  conditions  under  which  the  materials  are  collected  and  the 
records  are  kept.  These  conclusions  may  be  drawn  from  some  of  the 
tables  already  given. 

For  comparison  with  European  information,  it  is  fairly  safe  to  say, 
according  to  Mr.  George  Watson,  that  English  town  refuse  consists 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


43 


Fig.  6. — Garbage  Collections  in  St.  Paul,  Minn.,  for  Four  Years,  Showing  the 
Influence  of  the  War. 


44       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

substantially  of  one-third  combustible  matter,  one-third  incombustible 
matter,  and  one-third  moisture.  Although  the  combustible  matter  in 
England,  particularly  in  winter,  includes  much  cinder,  on  the  conti- 
nent, excepting  in  Hamburg,  cinder  is  almost  entirely  absent. 

F.— UNIT  WEIGHTS 

The  unit  measures  of  house  refuse  are  determined  by  a  number  of 
factors.  Variations  are  due  to  the  differences  in  the  population,  the 
season,  and  the  character  of  the  collection  service. 

Table  18  shows  the  weight  of  garbage  for  each  ward  in  Chicago,  in 
pounds  per  capita  per  annum.     The  figures  are  averages  for  1912. 

The  weight  of  garbage  per  cubic  yard,  as  collected  in  Milwaukee, 
is  given  in  Table  23,  together  with  the  rainfall  for  July  to  December, 
1910. 

The  figures  in  Table  23  are  averages  from  about  5000  loads  of 
garbage  per  month,  each  load  of  which  was  weighed.  The  increase 
in  weight  during  the  period  of  larger  rainfall  is  about  8%.  With 
individual  loads,  on  very  rainy  da5'^s,  the  increase  is  greater,  as  shown 
by  Table  24,  containing  the  records  of  several  individual  loads  in 
Milwaukee.  A  portion  of  the  garbage  recorded  in  this  Table  was 
wrapped  in  paper.  The  increase  in  weight  of  individual  loads  due  to 
wet  weather,  therefore,  may  amount  to  more  than  50%. 

As  the  labor  of  handling  refuse  is  more  nearly  proportionate  to 
bulk  than  weight,  it  is  well  to  record  it  also  by  bulk.  Most  of  the  in- 
formation is  now  given  by  weight.  It  would  be  well,  therefore,  if 
more  unit  weights  of  the  different  materials  collected  were  taken  and 
reported,  both  for  different  week  days  and  for  different  seasons,  from 
which  both  bulk  and  weight  could  be  ascertained.  It  would  be  still 
better  if  the  labor  were  reckoned,  not  in  dollars  and  cents,  but  in  cubic 
yards  or  tons  dealt  with  per  man  per  houl". 

The  following  data,  showing  the  weight  per  cubic  yard  of  dift'erent 
refuse  materials,  are  taken  from  Hering's  Milwaukee  report:  The 
weights  were  furnished  by  the  city  officials. 

Mateiial  ^""""^^  P^' 

cubic  yard 

Garbage  and  rubbish  mixed 1040 

Ashes 1210 

Rubbish 650 

Manure  (reported  as  "dry") 970 

In  some  cases,  special  restrictions,  placed  on  the  householder  by 
the  collection  department,  will  materially  affect  the  weight  per  cubic 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


45 


Table    23. — Effect    of    Rainfall    on    General    M(jnthly    Wkkjht    ok 
GAnnAOE,  IN  Milwaukee,  in  1910 

(.")000  loadw  woiKhed  per  month) 


Moiitli 


l{:uiifall  (luiiM)-'  ini.ulli,  ii 


yard,  in  pouuda 


July 

August 

September . . 

Averages 

October.  .  .  . 
November.  . 
December.  . 

Averages 


2.84 
2.75 
1.71 

2.43 

1.24 
1.63 
0.46 

1.11 


Period  of  larger 
rainfall 


Period  of  smaller 
rainfall 


930 
950 
990 

957 

1000 
890 
770 

887 


Table   24. — Effect  of  Rainfall  on  Weight  of  Individual  Loads  of 
Garbage  and  Ashes,  in  Milwaukee 


Weather 

Material 

Number  of 

individual  loada 

weighed 

Weight  per 

cubic  yard,  in 

pounds 

Very  rainy 

Clear 

Very  rainy 

Clear 

Garbage 
Garbage 

Ashes 
Ashes 

4 
4 

2 

2 

1170 

740 

1560 

1440 

Table  25. — Weight  of  Refuse,   New  York  City 

IN    Pounds   per    Capita    (U.  S.  Census    Population) 

(Data  from  Report  by  Parsons,  Hering  and  Whinery,  1907) 


Borough 

1905 

1906 

Gar- 
bage 

Ashes 

Rub- 
bish 

Street 
sweep- 
ings 

Total 
refuse 

Gar- 
bage 

Ashes 

Rub- 
bish 

Street 
sweep- 
ings 

Total 
refuse 

Manhattan. . 
The  Bronx.  . 
Brooklyn .  .  . 

Queens 

Richmond. . . 

N.Y.City. 

2'?2 
121 
148 
127 
232 

1275 

757 
518 
430 
530 

98 

49 
94 
36 
25 

317 

188 
173 
201 

789 

1912 

1115 

933 

794 
1576 

217 

119 
145 
192 
256 

1327 
708 
496 
544 
561 

108 

51 
88 
61 
40 

330 
176 
168 
245 
804 

1982 
1054 
897 
1042 
1661 

185 

920 

88 

261 

1454 

184 

940 

93 

267 

1484 

46       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

yard  of  refuse  as  delivered.  The  Commissioner  of  Health  in  Minne- 
apolis, having  charge  of  garbage  collection  and  disposal,  has  required 
that  all  householders  shall  drain  the  garbage  and  then  wrap  it  in 
paper.  This  requirement  is  very  generally  observed.  The  weight  of 
garbage  in  Minneapolis  is  recorded  in  the  annual  reports  as  being  only 
658  lb.  per  cu.  yd.  This  low  figure  is  due  to  the  wrapping  in  paper. 
Trenton,  N.  J.,  has  also  advantageously  adopted  this  practice. 

Table  25  gives  the  weights  per  capita  of  the  several  kinds  of  refuse 
collected  in  the  Boroughs  of  New  York  City  during  1905  and  1906. 

Parsons  used  the  following  conversion  figures  for  New  York  City. 

Garbage 1150  lb.  per  cu.  yd. 

Ashes 1350       " 

Rubbish 200       " 

Street  sweepings 850       "         ' ' 

Special  measurements  were  made  in  Rochester  to  determine  the 
average  weight  per  cubic  yard  of  garbage,  with  the  following  results: 

"The  weights  of  six  loads  of  garbage  on  October  27,  measuring  3.23  cu. 
yd.  each,  are  as  follows: 

3,730  lb. 
4,080  lb. 
3,530  lb. 
3,450  lb. 
3,875  lb. 
3,895  lb. 


Total  22,560  1b. 
"This  reduces  to  an  average  of  3760  lb.  per  load  of  3.23  cu.  yd.,  or  1164  lb. 
per  cu.  yd. 

"The  average  weight  per  cubic  yard  of  two  loads  of  3.23  cu.  yd.  each,  on 
August  30,  1906,  was  1174  lb.  The  average  production  of  garbage  per  capita 
per  year  is  240  lb.      The  weight  of  rubbish  is  estimated  at  200  lb.  per  cu.  yd." 

In  a  cold  climate,  frozen  garbage  and  ashes  weigh  less  per  unit 
volume  than  when  not  frozen,  because,  generally,  they  do  not  pack  so 
tightly  in  the  wagon.  Garbage,  when  delivered  to  a  point  of  disposal 
after  a  long  haul  over  rough  roads,  weighs  more  per  cubic  yard  than 
otherwise,  because  of  the  settling  and  packing  received  while  traveling. 
In  a  warm  and  moist  climate,  garbage,  when  tightly  packed  after 
delivery,  weighs  more  than  in  a  cold  dry  climate.  In  Miami,  Fla.,  1 
cu.  yd.  has  weighed  as  much  as  1500  lb.  Ashes  and  rubbish,  when 
piled  carelessly  in  yards  or  alleys,  and  infrequently  collected,  absorb 
moisture,  become  mixed  with  soil  and  dirt,  and  are  generally  heavier 
than  when  kept  at  the  house  in  closed  cans.  Additional  data  regard- 
ing unit  weights  are  given  in  Chapters  XIV,  XV,  and  XVI. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS  47 


G.— COMPOSITION 

The  value  of  materials  with  reference  to  their  final  disposal  is 
only  to  be  obtained  through  a  knowledge  of  their  physical  and  chem- 
ical analyses,  including  their  calorific  value. 

1.  Physical  Analysis. — A  [)hysical  or  mechanical  analysis  of  refuse 
shows  the  quantities  and  proportions  of  garbage,  fine  ashes,  clinker, 
glass,  paper,  wood,  straw,  metal,  shoes,  leather,  etc.  Most  of  these 
ingredients  appear  in  all  classes  of  refuse,  but  more  particularly  in 
ashes  and  rubbish.  Such  analyses  of  rubbish  and  mixed  refuse  are  of 
special  importance  when  it  is  proposed  to  sort  out  from  the  refuse  the 
marketable  constituents.  The  chief  causes  for  the  variation  in  the 
quantities  of  these  ingredients  are  the  character  and  habits  of  the  pop- 
ulation. Geographical  location  and  season  cause  less  variation.  The 
quantities  of  discarded  materials  generally  reflect  the  wastefulness  or 
thrift  of  a  community.  Tables  26  to  29  inclusive  give  the  phj'sical 
analyses  of  refuse  materials  in  a  number  of  cities. 

Table  30  is  a  summary  of  the  physical  analyses  of  Chicago  refuse 
during  one  January  in  comparison  with  similar  records  in  the  Borough 
of  Richmond,  N.  Y.,  during  five  Januarys. 

In  order  to  make  comparable  physical  analyses  of  the  ingredients 
for  different  communities,  a  standard  method  should  be  adopted. 
The  procedure  of  the  Bureau  of  Streets  in  Chicago,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Messrs.  Fetherston,  Osborn,  and  Greeley,  as  described  on  page 
15,  is  here  recommended.  The  following  description  of  an  analysis 
(Table  11)  in  Chicago  is  taken  from  a  report  by  Mr.  W.  J.  Galligan, 
Assistant  Superintendent  of  Streets,  as  follows: 

"Mixed  ashes  and  rubbish,  removed  to  dumps  by  the  Chicago  Bureau  of 
Streets,  were  analyzed,  from  June  17  to  Sept.  16,  by  selecting  60  representa- 
tive loads  from  seven  different  zones  into  which  the  city  was  divided.  The 
groups  are  based  on  similar  existing  conditions.     *     *     * 

"The  segregation  of  the  wards  into  the  seven  groups  was  based  on  the 
character  of  the  residents  as  well  as  the  class  of  buildings  and  their  use. 

^^  Group  A  is  composed  of  business  and  manufacturing  interests  and  con- 
sequently has  only  a  small  output  of  household  refuse. 

"Group  B  is  made  up  of  residences  and  high-grade  apartment  buildings, 
the  homes  of  the  wealthy.  The  help  employed  is  wasteful,  the  ashes  are  not 
sifted,  and  the  garbage  output  is  above  the  average.  Steam  and  hot  water 
heat  are  used  for  the  most  part.  The  output  of  ashes  is  large  in  summer 
because  hot  water  heaters  are  operated.  Anthracite,  semi-anthracite,  or 
Pocahontas  coal  is  the  fuel  used. 

"Group  C  includes  houses  and  flats  or  apartments  occupied  by  the  middle 
class.  The  residents  are  economical,  and  to  a  considerable  extent  sift  their 
ashes  and  burn  the  cinders.     Steam,  hot  water,  and  furnaces  furnish  the  heat. 


48       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


(^ 


O  xi 


o  g 


W 


03    ^ 
^    o 

■§P5 


3 


O  C<1 


C^ 

CD 

t>. 

CO 

T— 1 

1> 

CO 

CO 

1> 

u     o 


00        CO 


O  (M 

1— I  Ol 


c 
o 
O 


« 


« 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


49 


During  the  summer  season  the  ash  outj)ut  is  from  hot-water  heaters,  gas  being 
used  for  cooking  purposes.  The  outi)ut  of  garbage  from  this  grouj)  is  relatively 
small  contrasted  with  that  of  group  B. 

"Group  D  is  composed  of  houses  and  tenements  occupied  by  the  laboring 
class.  These  people  are  economical,  heat  by  stove,  sift  their  ashes,  and  u.se 
both  bituminous  and  anthracite  coal.     They  also  burn  such  combustible  refuse 


Table    27. — Physical   Analyses   of   Rubbish,    in   Washington,    D. 
November,  1914,  to  August,  1915 

(In  percentages  by  weight) 


c, 


Component  parts 

Nov., 
1914 

Dec, 
1914 

Jan., 
1915 

Mar., 
1915 

May, 
1915 

June, 
1915 

July, 
1915 

Aug., 
1915 

Newspaper 

10.4 

17.8 

19.5 

16.1 

15.6 

17.2 

17.0 

16.0 

Manila  paper 

6.6 

12.7 

7.0 

9.5 

8.7 

7.3 

12.1 

13.4 

Cardboard 

0.8 

4.4 

9.4 
3.0 

11.7 

2.4 

10.5 

2.4 

9.7 
3.3 

6.9 
3.2 

10.9 
1.4 

12.8 
5.6 

Books,  etc 

Mixed  paper 

16.6 

4.4 

3.1 

5.0 

4.6 

2.8 

2.4 

2.6 

Rags 

5.9 

3.7 

4.5 

5.2 

7.2 

4.3 

5.0 

5.7 

Wood 

1.2 
1.5 
0.3 

7.4 
0.2 
0.3 
4  6 

1.4 
0.4 

18.5 

2.8 

0.7 

0.3 

18  4 

2.6 

1.2 

0.5 

10  4 

4.1 

0.2 

0.0 

18.6 

2.6 
1,0 

4.1 
1.1 

Leather 

Rubber 

Screenings 

12.3 

11.1 

Tinware 

10.2 

7.3 

11.7 

13.6 

8.8 

6.6 

5.6 

6.4 

Enamelware 

0.4 

0.4 

0.1 

0.4 

0.3 

5.0 

0.1 

Metals 

1.8 

0.6 

0.3 

0.8 

1.3 

1.1 

0.8 

1.5 

Bottles 

11.0 

8.1 

7.7 

9.0 

7.7 

8.3 

8.4 

7.2 

Broken  glass 

3.8 

3.5 

4.0 

4.7 

5.2 

4.3 

4.8 

3.5 

Excelsior 

0.7 
1.1 
0.8 

0.3 

0.8 

0.7 
0.3 
1.6 

0.1 
0.0 
1.5 

0.7 
0.7 
1.4 

0.1 

Matresses,  etc 

Matting.. 

5.2 
3.1 

0.1 

0.3 

Linoleum 

Straw 

0.7 

0.3 

0.1 
0.0 

8.4 

0.1 

0.4 
6.9 

Dirt 

Totals 

16.1 

14.0 

4.5 

10.0 

11.5 

8.7 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

as  is  available  for  heating  purposes.     During  the  summer  season  they  use  gas, 
bituminous  ooal,  and  wood  as  fuel  for  cooking. 

"Group  E  is  made  up  of  tenement  houses  occupied  by  the  working  classes 
who  are  foreign  and  still  use  their  native  language.  These  people  are  careless 
about  littering  the  streets  and  alleys,  and  fail  to  comply  with  notices  served  to 
correct  violations  of  city  ordinances.  Analyses  show  them  to  be  careless  also 
about  separating  garbage  from  other  refuse.  They  are  not  wasteful,  however, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  very  saving  in  every  way  possible.     Stove  heat  is  em- 


50       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

ployed,  about  75  %  of  the  coal  burned  being  bituminous  and  of  the  cheapest 
kind.     The  resulting  ash  is  of  little  calorific  value.     In  seven  of  the  nineteen 


Table  28. — Physical  Analyses  of  Rubbish,  New  York  City 

(In  percentages  by  weight) 


Component  parts 

Pebcentagb  Picked  Out  as 
Marketable 

Percentage  op  Total 
Composition 

City  of  New  York 

Boston. 
Atlantic 
Avenue 
Station 
(Morse) 

New 

York. 

(Craven) 

* 

London. 

(Russell) 

* 

Berlin. 
(Bohm 

and 
Crohn) 

Delancey 

Slip 

Station 

(Parsons) 

Thirtieth 
Street 
dump 

(Stearns) 

Forty- 
seventh 
Street 
dump 
(Stearns) 

Stoneware »  .  .    . 

5.0 
3.6 

33.5 
6.3 

Raes 

4.60 

2.78 

0.76 

15.5 
0.1 

1.8 

Rubber 

Leather 

29.7 

9.2 
13.1 

3.8 
19.7 

2.2 
4.2 
7.0 

Straw     

Wood 

7.3 
1.3 

1.4 

8.91 
4.10 
0.76 
0.39 
0.57 
0.39 
0.03 
0.23 

10.94 
2.64 

10.35 
6.16 
0.55 

0.12 
0.35 

1.4 
3.3 

2.9 

Metals 

Glass 

0.86 

Baecinff 

Carpets 

Shoes 

Hats .  . . 

Rope  and  string. 

0.12 
23.90 

Paper 

Newspaper. 

25.40 

33.3 

75.0 

39.4 

23.3 

Manila 

Pasteboard 

Mixed        .  . . 

Books 

0.24 

Total  marketable 
Total  worthless. . 

Totals 

30.86 
69.14 

43.3 

56.7 

48.80 
51.20 

25.49 
74.51 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

*  International   Engineering   Congress,    Am.    Soc.    C.    E.,    1904. 
Hering.     (From  "Municipal  Refuse,"  by  H.  de  B.  Parsons) 


Paper   by   Rudolph 


wards  a  large  amount  of  wood  is  used  as  fuel, 
wood  and  coal  are  used  for  cooking  piirposes. 


During  the  summer  season 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


51 


"Group  F  is  composed  of  the  homes  of  a  mixed  population  of  native  white, 
foreign  born,  and  colored  people,  also  of  cheap  rooming  houses  occupied  by 
persons  who  do  light  housekeeping.     They  are  careless  about  littering  the 

Table   29. — Physical  Analysis   of  21,034   lb.  of   Refuse, 
Collected   from  All  Parts  op  Toronto,  Ont.,  October,  1914 

(From  Enginecrino  News-Record,  February  7,  1918,  p.  259) 


Wei 

JHT 

Vol 

D.\IE 

I'ouiwis 
per 

Classification 

cubic 

Pounds 

Percentage 

Cubic  feet 

Percentage 

foot 

Glass  and  crockery 

771.25 

3.52 

22.30 

1.90 

28.2 

Metals 

81.50 

0.40 

7.50 

0.52 

10.9 

Paper  and  cardboard.  .  . 

4,653.00 

22.12 

682.40 

47.58 

6.8 

Tins 

398.25 

1.90 

49.55 

3.47 

8.0 

Rags 

420.75 

2.01 

42.53 

2.98 

9.9 

Bones 

150.00 

0.72 

4.70 

0.33 

31.9 

Vegetable  matter 

10,185.00 

48.53 

390.72 

27.21 

26.1 

Bread 

156.75 

0.75 

11.06 

0.89 

14.1 

Fish 

240.50 

1.15 

6.10 

0.41 

39.4 

Wood,  boxes,  and  baskets 

235.50 

1.12 

40.60 

2.89 

5.8 

Linoleum 

113.25 

0.54 

17.29 

1.27 

6.6 

Grass,  flowers,  and  weeds 

187.75 

0.89 

25.91 

1.80 

7.2 

Shoes 

92.50 

0.44 

6.66 

0.48 

13.9 

Sawdust  and  dirt 

2,196.00 

10.44 

66.79 

4.66 

32.8 

Ashes 

1,079.00 

5.13 

31.20 

2.18 

34.6 

Excelsior,  straw 

Totals  and  averages. . . 

73.00 

0.34 

20.46 

1.43 

3.6 

21,034.00 

100.00 

1430.77 

100.00 

14.7 

Table  30. — Physical  Analyses  of  Ashes  and  Rubbish 
Collected  in  January.     New  York  and  Chicago 

(Percentages  by  weight) 


Fine 
ash 

Coal  and 
cinders 

Clinker 

Glass 

Rubbish 

Garbage 

Borough  of  Richmond, 
New  York,  average  of 
five  Januarys 

Chicago,  one  January. . . 

53.5 

49.88 

27.1 
34.00 

2.9 
11.59 

6.6 
1.84 

9.9 
1.70 

0.00 
0.99 

streets  and  alleys,  and  separation  of  garbage.     Wood  and  bituminous  coals  are 
used  for  fuel  during  all  seasons  of  the  year. 

"Group  G  (not  included  in  the  accompanying  table)  is  made  up  of  the 


52       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

homes  of  a  mixed  population  of  American  and  foreign-born  persons  ranging 
from  the  middle  to  the  laboring  class.  No  separation  of  garbage  from  other 
refuse  is  asked,  owing  to  the  inaccessibility  of  these  districts  to  the  reduction 
plant.     All  grades  of  coal  and  wood  are  used  for  fuel. 

"In  one  of  the  60  loads  no  ashes  were  found.  Seven  loads  in  group  G  were 
not  used  in  the  table  owing  to  the  non-separation  of  garbage  from  other  refuse. 
The  loads  averaged  5  cu.  yd.  each. 

"In  certain  wards  there  were  proportionately  larger  amounts  of  com- 
bustible refuse  than  in  others,  due  to  ward  burners  not  being  operated  and  to 
the  frequency  of  service  given,  whether  daily,  twice  a  week,  or  weekly.  In 
many  localities  the  residents  have  portable  rubbish  burners.  In  a  large  num- 
ber of  apartment  buildings  there  are  installed  crematories  in  which  both  gar- 
bage and  rubbish  are  consumed.  This  is  particularly  true  during  the  winter 
season. 

"The  total  weight  of  rags  in  the  sixty  loads  analyzed  was  2640  lb.  They 
were  obtained  largely  in  wagons  from  ward  groups  B  and  C,  representative  of 
the  wealthy  and  middle  class.  In  wagons  of  groups  D  and  E  but  small  quan- 
tities were  found.  Rag  pickers,  with  their  carts  of  about  a  cubic  yard  capa- 
city, flourish  in  the  former  groups. 

"Old  Newspapers. — It  is  difficult  to  secure  a  reasonably  accurate  estimate 
of  the  output  of  newspapers  rejected  by  the  public.  Janitors,  generally,  save, 
bundle  and  hold  papers  until  they  acquire  a  considerable  quantity,  which  they 
sell  to  paper  or  junk  dealers.  Both  in  the  case  of  elevated  railroads  and  steam 
roads  carrying  suburban  passengers,  at  each  terminal  the  papers  are  gathered, 
baled  and  sold  in  car-load  lots.  The  total  circulation  of  the  daily  morning 
and  evening  papers  is  1,265,400,  weighing  1660  tons.  Based  upon  these  figures 
the  annual  tonnage  would  be  nearly  520,000  tons.  Added  to  this  are  the 
Sunday  editions,  bringing  the  total  very  close  to  600,000  tons  per  year  of  this 
sort  of  refuse. 

"Peddlers  canvass  the  districts  embraced  in  ward  groups  B  and  C  offering 
brooms  and  other  household  articles  in  exchange  for  fairly  good  old  shoes. 
These  are  sold  to  a  class  of  cobblers  and  small  dealers  who  repair  and  sell  them 
at  a  small  price.  Discarded  shoes  from  the  other  groups  are  of  practically  no 
value,  having  been  worn  beyond  repair. 

"Little  metal  of  any  kind  was  obtained  in  the  loads  analyzed.  Cast  iron 
and  scrap  iron  were  to  a  small  degree  in  evidence.  This  class  of  waste  is 
generally  sold  by  householders  and  janitors  to  junk  dealers. 

"Rubbish  in  the  streets  and  in  the  alleys  is  picked  over  by  a  class  of  men 
who  gather  anything  that  has  a  ready  commercial  value.  The  number  of  men 
who  are  thus  employed  is  large;  nearly  all  junk  dealers  are  ready  to  furnish 
them  with  carts  or  bags.  The  work  is  systematized,  the  men  working  in 
definite  districts. 

"Recovery  of  Valuable  Matter. — Trade  waste  is  a  term  applied  to  refuse 
discarded  by  factories,  manufacturers,  hotels,  and  other  places  of  business, 
which  is  not  removed  by  the  city.  From  this  class  of  refuse,  practically  every- 
thing of  value  is  extracted  by  the  owner,  janitor,  or  a  contractor.  Certain 
owners  or  agents  have  the  cinder  output  removed  from  their  premises  without 
cost  under  private  contract,  by  including  their  salable  refuse.     Garbage  from 


REFUSE  MATERIALS  53 

hotels,  caffe,  and  restaurants,  rich  in  meat  grease  and  bone,  is  of  commercial 
value  and  is  sold  or  given  in  exchange  for  soap  or  other  articles  of  value. 

"In  the  sixty  loads  analyzed,  fine  ash,  cinder,  and  clinker  comprised 
49.3%  by  weight  of  the  whole,  and  rubbish  the  remainder.  Rubbish,  exclud- 
ing garbage,  was  29.8%  of  the  whole.  The  weight  of  ashes  per  cubic  yard 
was  1185  lb.,  and  the  percentage  of  combustible  material  was  58.3.  The 
material  having  a  commercial  value  was  14.8%. 

"The  weight  per  cubic  yard  of  rubbish  is  considerably  higher  than  that 
of  other  cities,  due  to  its  containing  yard  cleanings  and  larger  amounts  of 
garbage.  The  term  yard  cleanings  used  in  the  Chicago  classification  of 
waste  does  not  appear  in  the  reports  of  other  cities.  This  material  remained 
in  the  screen  in  the  analyzing  process  and  was  separated  from  the  cinders  by 
picking." 

In  some  cases  it  is  desirable  to  separate  the  fine  ash  from  the  ashes 
when  collected,  leaving  a  larger  proportion  of  cinder  or  unburned 
carbon,  and  larger  interstitial  air  space.  By  doing  this,  combustion  is 
increased,  the  necessary  capacity  of  the  furnaces  is  reduced,  and  a 
more  serviceable  t)urning  mixture  is  obtained.  The  cost  of  screening, 
however,  sometimes  makes  it  uneconomical. 

In  some  cities,  especially  along  the  Pacific  Coast,  the  refuse  con- 
tains many  tin  cans.  A  mechanical  analysis  should  be  made,  to  show 
their  quantity,  as  their  presence  is  an  important  item  for  considera- 
tion in  several  methods  of  disposal. 

Tests  have  been  made  at  Milwaukee  and  New  York  to  determine 
how  much  moisture  can  be  drained  or  pressed  out  of  garbage.  The 
tests  at  Milwaukee,  made  by  Professor  Sommer,  extended  over  24 
hours.  Different  quantities  of  garbage  were  placed  in  a  salt  barrel,  and 
the  quantity  of  water  draining  out  was  recorded.  The  results  of  this 
test  are  shown  in  Table  31.  The  maximum  quantity  of  moisture 
which  drained  out  under  a  pressure  of  24  in.  of  garbage  was  9.33% 
of  the  original  weight. 

Compression  tests  were  made  by  the  Lederle  Laboratories  for  the 
Parsons,  Hering,  Whinery  report  to  New  York  City.  The  tests  and 
results  (Table  32)  are  given  in  the  report  as  follows: 

"One  cubic  yard  of  garbage  was  placed  in  a  cylindrical  vessel,  3  ft.  in  diam- 
eter and  4  ft.  deep.  Weights  of  438,  1,059,  1,694,  and  2,330  lb.,  correspond- 
ing, respectively,  to  60,  150,  240,  and  330  lb.  per  sq.  ft.,  were  placed  on  the 
garbage,  and  the  water  drawn  off  at  recorded  intervals  of  time  and  measured. 

"The  second  test  produced  so  much  more  liquid  than  the  first  that  it 
was  thought  advisable  to  subject  garbage  collected  on  a  Monday  to  the  initial 
test  of  60  lb.  pressure.     The  result  is  given  in  the  third  test." 

Further  data  referring  to  physical  analyses  may  be  found  in  Chap- 
ters XIV,  XV,  and  XVI. 


54       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


2.  Chemical  Analysis. — The  chemical  analysis  of  refuse  is  difficult 
to  obtain  accurately.  It  should  include  a  determination  (1)  of  the 
ingredients  in  refuse  which  are  valuable  in  soil  fertilizing;  (2)  the 
quantities  of  grease  which  may  be  recovered;  and  (3)  the  quantities 
of  carbon  and  hydrogen  capable  of  oxidation  to  produce  heat.  It 
should  determine,  also,  the  moisture  in  the  refuse  material,  the  quan- 
tity of  true  ash,  and  the  calorific  value  of  the  materials. 

Table  31. — Determination  of  Free  Moisture  in  Garbage,  Milwaukee, 

1907 


Date 

Quantity  of  Garbage 

Quantity  of  Water 
Drained  Out 

Weight,  in 
pounds 

Heights  in 

barrel, 
in  inches 

In  pints 

Percentage  by 

weight  of 

original 

garbage 

September  17th. .  . 
September  18th. .  . 
September  19th. .  . 
September  20th. .  . 

50 
100 
150 
200 

8 
16 
24 
32 

0.33 

7.50 

14.00 

15.00 

0.67 
7.50 
9.33 
7.50 

The  difficulty  in  obtaining  these  data  with  fair  accuracy  is  due  to 
the  difficulty  of  securing  representative  samples,  because  the  materials 
vary  from  one  year  to  another,  from  season  to  season,  and  according 
to  the  localities  where  collected.  Most  analyses  do  not  cover  periods 
of  more  than  a  few  weeks;  therefore,  the  results  are  not  usually  truly 
representative,  but  only  show  the  composition  under  stated  conditions. 

Garbage  at  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  was  analyzed  in  1907  by  Professor 
Sommer,  and  in  1910  by  Greeley;  the  results  of  the  two  analyses  are 
as  follows: 


Source 

Percentage 

BY  Weight 

Moisture 

Volatile 
matter 

Fixed 
carbon 

Ash 

Sommer 

78.0 
70.6 

17.6 

8.4 
4.1 

13.6 

7.7 

Greeley 

These  analyses  show  the  importance  of  securing  proper  represen- 
tative samples,  as  the  portion  analyzed  by  Professor  Sommer  appears 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


55 


Table  32. — Liquid  .Sqijekzjod  imou   New  YoitK   Gakhacr   hy  Pkksst're 

(Parsons,  Ilering,  Whinery  Report,  1907) 


Pressure, 

in 
pounds 

per 

Bfiuare 

foot 

Time  from 
Start  op  Test 

Quantity  of  Liquid 

S'juEE?.EO  Out 
FROM  Start  op  Test 

Hours 

Minutes 

Pounds 

Ounces 

First  Test: 

60 

15 

Monday's    garbage    col- 
lected Tuesday;    bulk, 
1  cu.  yd.;  total  weight, 
677  lb. 

60 

60 

150 

240 

7 

17 

6 

45 
15 

4 

7 

3 

8 

240 

30 

19 

Totals 

330 

5 

30 

24 

8 

59 

45 

47 

11 

Second  Test: 

150 

15 

21 

Sunday's    garbage,     col- 
lected Monday;    bulk, 
1  cu.  yd.;  total  weight, 
1122  lb. 

150 
150 
150 
150 

1 
5 
6 

30 
30 

32 
40 
68 
73 

150 

35 

30 

82 

240 

15 

1 

8 

240 

30 

4 

240 

1 

6 

8 

240 

3 

30 

14 

8 

240 

6 

30 

20 

8 

240 

24 

30 

54 

330 

15 

1 

4 

330 

30 

2 

8 

330 

1 

5 

8 

330 

3 

14 

8 

330 

24 

43 

Totals 

330 

27 

30 

50 

12 

87 

30 

186 

12 

Third  Test: 

60 

15 

21 

Sunday's    garbage,     col- 
lected Monday;    bulk, 

60 
60 

1 

30 

32 

45 

leu.  yd.;  weight,  1333 
lb. 

60 
60 

3 

6 

67 
86 

Totals 

60 

17 

103 

17 

103 

56       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


to  have  included  substances  containing  a  comparatively  large  propor- 
tion of  ash. 

Most  refuse  materials  contain  some  ingredients  which  are  useful 
in  the  fertilization  of  soil.  This  is  particularly  true  of  manure,  as 
pointed  out  in  Chapter  XII,  but  garbage  and  ashes  also  contain  small 
quantities  of  plant  food.  The  chief  elements  of  fertilizing  value  are 
phosphoric  acid,  ammonia,  and  potash.  Coal  ashes  contain  a  very 
small  quantity  of  potash,  and  therefore  have  only  a  slight  fertilizing 
value.  Garbage,  on  the  other  hand,  has  a  decided  value  as  a  fertilizer 
for  poor  or  sandy  soils.  Yet  this  value  is  less  than  is  shown  by  the 
analyses,  or  than  is  popularly  supposed,  because  the  animal  and 
vegetable  matters  must  first  be  decomposed  before  they  are  available 
for  plant  food.  The  grease  content  in  garbage  is  even  detrimental  to 
its  immediate  value  as  a  fertilizer,  as  it  tends  to  clog  or  "  fat  "  the  soil, 
thus  preventing  the  necessary  penetration  of  air. 

In  the  reduction  method  of  garbage  disposal  grease  is  extracted  and 
water  is  driven  off.  The  fertilizing  elements  are  concentrated  into  a 
dry  residue  called  tankage.  In  some  cases,  special  analyses  have  been 
made  in  order  to  show  the  value  of  garbage  for  this  method  of  dis- 
posal. The  quantity  of  grease  contained  in  garbage  varies  from  about 
1  to  7%  of  the  weight  of  the  raw  material,  and  the  residual  tankage 
varies  from  10  to  20%. 

Although  the  foregoing  analyses  are  not  extensive  enough  to  show 
fixed  variations  in  the  chemical  composition  due  to  the  location  or 
season,  or  to  the  character  of  the  population,  nevertheless,  the  result- 
ing differences  certainly  exist.  In  warm  seasons  and  in  warm  climates 
less  meat  and  more  vegetables  are  eaten.  In  such  cases,  the  quantity 
of  grease  in  the  garbage  is  less,  because  it  is  derived  principally  from 
the  animal  matter.  In  1910,  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  where  the  garbage 
is  treated  by  reduction,  the  grease  recovery  in  summer  was  1.1%; 
but  in  winter  it  amounted  to  1.5%.  Partly  on  this  account,  reduc- 
tion works  in  southern  cities,  as  a  rule,  have  not  been  profitable. 

The  quantities  of  grease,  in  percentages  of  the  garbage,  for  several 
cities  have  been  as  follows: 


City 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

Detroit! 

2.4 

3.0 

2.9 

Cleveland 

2.95 

2.81 

3.06 

2.83 

2.36 

2.55 

Columbus 

2.74 

2.21 

3.08 

2.3 

2.16 

Minneapolis .... 

1.02 

!  Data  for  4  months  of  each  year. 
^  Average  from  all  wards. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


57 


To  design  refuse  incinerators  properly,  the  analyses  of  the  refuse 
materials  should  show  the  content  of  carbon,  hydrogen,  water,  fine 
and  true  ash,  volatile  matter,  and  the  British  thermal  units.  These 
elements  are  required  in  order  to  compute  the  heat  value,  the  quantity 
of  cUnker,  and  the  cross-sectional  areas  necessary  for  the  furnace 
ducts  and  flues.  The  hydrogen  may  assist  in  estimating  the  calorific 
value  of  the  material.  Tables  33  to  36  give  analyses  of  refuse  showing 
these  constituents. 


4.0 


Moisture 


g  3.0 
(S    2.0 


0^     16 


»2100 

•32000 

■S  t^  1900 

S   a  1800 

n  S  1™ 

2  1600 


H  1500 


-1-                       III 

t                 III 

Ash 

1   ■    1    1    1        II 

1   1   1    1    1        II 

Combustible  Matter 

1   1 

Calorific  Value 

1909 


1910 


Eth«r  Extract 


5      19 
g      18 


tt 


\mh 


Phosphoric  Acid 


2.70 
2.00 
2.50 
2.40 
2.30 
2.20 

1 

,  1- 
1 
1 

0 
0 
0 


^ 

itrogen 

. 

. 

1 

1 

Potash 


.3 

1 

.0 

.9 

.8 
.7 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_ 

_x 

s 


33a- 

►3    1-5  -"I 


1909 


09  1910 


Fig.  7. 


-Average  Monthly  Variation  in  Consituents  of  Garbage  in  Four  Ohio 
Cities,  and  Calorific  Values. 


Note. — Averages,  May  to  August,  1909,  for  Cleveland,  Columbus,  and  Dayton;    aver' 
ages,  September,  1909,  to  June,  1910,  for  Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  Columbus,  and  Dayton. 


Fig.  7  shows  the  average  monthy  variation  in  percentages  of  mois- 
ture, ash,  combustible  matter,  calorific  value,  ether  extract,  phos- 
phoric acid,  nitrogen,  and  potash  in  the  garbage  of  four  Ohio  cities. 

Table  37  presents  chemical  analyses  of  the  garbage  in  Cincinnati, 
Ohio,  at  various  times  from  March  to  December,  1917,  together  with 
averages  for  each  month. 


58       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


H 
tf 


M     O 


o  o 


^  i 

O      hJ 

O 
C3 


T-4      T-<      05      O 


CO   t^ 

d  -H  o 


T-*     OO     O     TjH 

<r>  >-i  t^  CO  t» 

O 


W   O 

d  d 


CO    i-H 

O   (N  1> 


O   (M    iC   O 


d  o 


CO  o 

o  cq  o 


o  oi  c^i  ■* 


^  o 
o  o 


(N   ^    CO  1> 

CO   O    CN    t^   t^ 

CO 
CO 


1-^  o 
o  o 


T-^    00 
O    O    00 


00   iC   N.   <M 

^H    O    (M    05    >— I 
O 


d  o 


T-H      00 

O   O   00 


lO  lO  00  ■* 

r-l     O    (N     05    CO 


o  c 

d  d 


(N   O 

S  T-i   ^ 


05   CO   O    O 


r-l     O 

d  d 


(N     rH 

O    i-H     CO 


lO   Oi   i-i   o 

CO  d  lo  1^  Tt< 


i-H    o 

o  o 


tJH    O    O   O 
IC    >— I    lO    00   t>- 
GC 


(M    O 

d  d 


<M    CO 


O   (M    05    O 
lO    T-l    CD    CO    00 

c^  o 

o 


<M    O 

o  o 


(N    CO    ^    00 

iQ  1-H  i>  Tti  r^ 

(M    00 

o 


C^l   o 

d  d 


o  o  o  t^  o 


CO 

o  o  o  d  o 


o  o  o  t^  o 


O   O   C   l>^   o 


00 

c  o  o  d  o 


O  O  O  00  o 


o  o  o  d  o 


O  O  O  05  o 


O  O   O   00   o 


O  O   O   CO  o 


O   O  O   CO  o 


o  o  o  d  o 


OC 

rt 

CO 

t^ 

c 

CO 

c 

— 

a 

'Tf 

^ 

r- 

i^ 

CO 

r- 

c~ 

<r 

(N 

lO 

c 

c 

c 

CO  O 

►^ 

(N 

(M 

'^ 

-Q 

X! 

-Q 

;-! 

^ 

;-i 

a> 

O) 

a; 

a 

a 

a 

a. 

m 

0. 

cc 

0. 

03 

X 

a 

X 

C 

o 

X 

CI 

4; 

3 

:3 

H 

^ 

p 

a 

"3 

a 

"^ 

M 

(/, 

'S 

f 

s 

F 

r 

4- 

c 
c 

s 

c 

r 

a> 

r 

r 

52 

H 

c 

X 

<U 

^ 

t 

t- 

j3 

^ 

c 

V 

-r! 

t) 

a. 

c 

b. 

Ji 

X 
w 

-^ 

2 

K 

_a 

§ 

^ 

^ 

< 

H 
Z 

'c 

< 

0- 

'c 

"c 

> 

t: 

0. 
X 

< 

.2 

CO 

a- 

'c 

> 

a: 

< 

.22 

m 

ta 

u 

O 

REFUSE  MATERIALS 


59 


o  »o 

iM 

1- 

Cl 

Ol 

-■Z 

-H 

1  - 

1- 

T 

O 

- 

.-. 

-T 

O 

iM  O 

^ 

CO 

C^) 

l^ 

'"' 

""* 

CO 

CI 

lO 

""^ 

■"^ 

i 

CO 

-t 

s 

M 

■* 

■* 

<r>  CO 

00 

lO 

t^ 

t^ 

LO 

—' 

CO 

CO 

^ 

00 

Ol 

CI 

t^ 

CM 

(N  O 

CO 

Tfl 

CD 

CO 

""^ 

^~' 

rH 

Ol 

-t 

*"* 

o 

CI 

CO 

CO 
CM 

OC 
CO 

■*  »o 

o 

Oi 

00 

'^ 

t^ 

iM 

CO 

■* 

CO 

05 

CO 

iO 

00 

rH 

(N  O 

c^ 

CO 

CO 

lO 

t- 

^~* 

*"* 

CO 
00 

C^l 

Lt 

'^ 

"^ 

I~ 

rH 

CM 

co 

C-. 

-r 

CO 

t^  Tt< 

05 

Oi 

-* 

iC 

" 

«0 

o 

CO 

in 

l- 

T— 1 

rH 

o 

00 

r-l  O 

00 

(N 

03 

rH 

CO 

05 

C4 

^~' 

c 

'* 

CO 

*"* 

^"^ 

o 

CO 

CO 

t^ 

00 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO  cq 

Oi 

CO 

C^ 

c-1 

" 

CO 

t^ 

-t 

cr. 

CO 

c 

CSI 

CO 

LI 

l-H  O 

TjH 

""^ 

1> 

CO 

-t 

CO 

(M 

02 
CO 
CO 

M" 

I^ 

^~' 

^^ 

o 
c 

CO 

^ 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CM 

CO 

I>  (N 

CO 

00 

CO 

iM 

'^ 

rJH 

CO 

■* 

tH 

CD 

lO 

CO 

a-. 

CO 

O  O 

lO 

1—1 

i 

1—1 
CO 

lO 

CO 

(M 

(M 

o 

csi 

'"' 

CO 

o 

CO 

CM 

CO 

CM 

CO 

o 

00  CO 

lO 

00 

CO 

lO 

00 

O 

^ 

CO 

CD 

CO 

c 

CO 

Oi 

lO 

o  o 

lO 

""* 

00 

00 

CO 

iM 

(M 

C^ 

(M 

o 

(M 

'"' 

r- 

^ 
-* 

CO 
CO 

CO 
CM 

CO 

CO 
CM 

oo 

CO 

t^  CO 

c 

CO 

lO 

—1 

lO 

00 

lO 

00 

CM 

CO 

t^ 

00 

lO 

c 

■-H  O 

1> 

(M 

I— 1 
1—1 

^1 

(M 

'"' 

CO 

00 

(N 

*"* 

CO 

o 

CM 

«o 

00 
CM 

00 
c 

CO 

CO  '^ 

lO 

00 

iCi 

o 

lO 

00 

00 

00 

05 

-* 

iC 

rH 

CO 

^ 

1-1  o 

00 

<N 

1—1 
CO 

o 

1—1 
1—1 

C^ 

'"' 

00 

IM 

t^ 

'"' 

'"' 

CO 

00 

00 

g 

00 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CD  -* 

»o 

1— 1 

1-1 

1-1 

o 

lO 

(M 

t>- 

■* 

o 

»o 

CM 

I> 

CO 

(N  O 

a> 

CO 

1 

s 

05 

(M 

l-< 

o 

C^ 

lO 

'"* 

'"' 

o: 

g 

CD 

00 

T-H 

CO 

CO 

o 

t>  CC 

CD 

lO 

CO 

t^ 

»o 

^ 

CO 

^ 

T-H 

00 

00 

O 

CD 

i^ 

c^  o 

CO 

I— 1 

^ 

00 

CD 
1—1 

CD 

^^ 

—4 

""^ 

Tf< 

1—1 

o 

CM 

CO 
CM 

CO 

00 

»C  CO 

I> 

00 

1-1 

CO 

lO 

o 

oo 

00 

02 

t^ 

00 

CO 

00 

rH 

(N  O 

th 

'* 

CO 

CO 

CO 

1—1 

CO 

'"' 

^"^ 

CO 

^^ 

CO 

o 

o 

"* 

<M 
(M 

CM 

CM 

o 

00 
CO 

CD 

CD  CD 

00 

00 

00 

•* 

(M 

00 

t> 

^ 

rH 

00 

o 

00 

o 

r- 

(M  O 

I— 1 

tH 

CO 
(M 

CO 

lO 

'^^ 

o 

CO 

00 

'"' 

Tt< 

'"' 

o 

1 

CO 

1-t 

CM 

5 

CM 

CO 

o 


Sh      q; 


5  ^ 


O) 


o 


^      r2 


03 


°  "o  .a  -S  -C 
^  t>  PL,  <t^  pq 


•  Sis     03 


-1^  t3 


O 

S  c  ■^  X  -^  •  H 

Q;  tH  O  .rt  CC  !-. 

^  g  >  fL<  <j  eq 


3 

a  o 

O    X! 
0^      "      fe 

1X1^5  o  .a  o5  d 
D  2  >  fe  <<  pq 


b     0) 


E^  <ii  m 


60       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

As  a  general  approximation  of  fuel  values,  it  has  been  found  that 
1  lb.  of  coal  is  equaled  by  the  value  which,  under  favorable  condi- 
tions, can  be  obtained  from  8  to  12  lb.  of  unsorted  refuse,  including 
domestic  ashes. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston,  in  1908,  in  a  paper  read  before  the  Society  of 
Chemical  Industry,  New  York  Section,  gave  a  chemical  analysis 
(Table  38)  of  an  average  sample  of  the  three  principal  components  of 
refuse,  together  with  the  calculated  calorific  values  and  those  deter- 
mined by  tests.     He  also  shows,  in  diagrammatic  form  (Fig.  8),  the 


Proximate 
Analysis 

Per  Pound 

Refuse 

Per  Cent 

-- .^. 

^f- 

— — — 

:rr-j 

m. 



r.^" 

'^ 

"""*• 

Mois 

rare 

B.t.u. 

Per  Pound 

Refuse 

8      8        8 

\ 

S^ 



^ 

< 

iSept 

smber 

Estimated 

net  useful 

Steam  per  Pound 

Refuse  Burnsd 

Pounds 

►-              JO              OJ 

boo 
o         o         o 

\ 

^ 

\ 

,  Sept 

embe 

r 

Estimated 

Temperature 

of 

Combustion 

Chamber 

Degrees  F, 

K         g        « 

S        g       8 

^ 

s_ 

, 

^ 

N 

,  Sept 

embe 

r 

...    .1.         1 

^ 


Fig.  8. — Seasonal  Variation  in  Mixed  Refuse  Incineration,  West  New  Brighton. 


seasonal  variation  in  the  mixed  refuse  at  the  West  New  Brighton  incin- 
erator. From  this  diagram  it  will  be  seen  that  the  ash  is  high  in  winter, 
and  the  water  content  of  household  refuse  increases  with  the  pro- 
portion of  garbage  in  summer.  The  second  division  of  the  diagram 
shows  that  the  summer  refuse  is  low  in  calorific  power,  and  that 
September  is  the  critical  time  for  burning  the  mixed  waste.     Sep- 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


61 


teraber  is  also  indicated  as  the  critical  time  for  producing  steam  from 
mixed  refuse,  and  is  the  time  when  the  lowest  temperatuie  of  com- 
bustion may  be  expected.  In  this  case,  however,  the  temperature 
would  be  high  enough  to  ensure  the  complete  decomposition  of  the 
gases,  and  thereby  prevent  nuisance. 


Table  34. — Monthly  Variation  in  Chemical  Composition  of  Garbage 
IN  Washington,  D.  C,  in  1915 


Month 


January.  .  .  . 
February. . . 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September. . 
October.  .  .  . 
November.  . 
December.  . 

Total .  .  . 

Averages 


Number 

of  tons 

collected 


3,745 
3,283 
3,548 
3,829 
3,969 
4,002 
5,266 
8,341 
5,330 
4,607 
3,930 
3,846 


51,718 


Mois- 
ture 


74.2 
72.0 
70.2 
68.5 
72.0 
74.2 
79.7 
78.6 
75.5 
76.4 
72.8 
72.2 


73.8 


Com- 
busti- 
ble 


21.7 
24.4 
26.0 
27.5 
23.9 
21.8 
17.6 
18.5 
21.1 
20.7 
23.3 
23.5 


22.5 


Ash 


4.06 
3.22 
3.73 
3.96 
4.16 
4.42 
2.67 
2.89 
3.37 
2.89 
3.89 
4.28 


3.63 


Ether 
extract 


5.29 
5.95 
6.88 
7.16 
6.56 
4.97 
3.44 
3.82 
4.36 
4.15 
5.03 
5.96 


5.12 


Potash 


K2O 


0.29 
0.25 
0.25 
0.29 
0.33 
0.31 
0.31 
0.23 
0.23 
0.22 
0.29 
0.32 


0.28 


Phos- 
phoric 
acid  as 

P2OS 


0.57 

0.47 
0.41 
0.61 
0.47 
0.32 
0.27 
0.27 
0.27 
0.20 
0.11 
0.74 


0.39 


Nitro- 
gen 


0.67 
0.77 
0.73 
0.96 
0.82 
0.61 
0.46 
0.54 
0.61 
0.64 
0.70 
1.03 


0.71 


Mr.  B.  F.  Welton  is  the  authority  for  the  following  calorimeter 
test  and  proximate  analysis  of  mixed  refuse  at  West  New  Brighton, 
N.  Y.,  made  in  1906.* 

1.  The  materials  in  the  sample  were:  Garbage. 53 .4%  by  weight 

Coal  and  cinders. .   27.0%         " 
Rubbish 19.6%         " 

2.  The  proximate  analysis  showed :     Moisture 45 . 1  % 

Volatile  matter  ...  26 . 6% 

Fixed  carbon 23.8% 

Ash 14.4% 

3.  Proximate  calorific  values  per  lb.:  Original  sample.. .  4300  B.t.u. 

Dry  sample 7900      " 

Combustiblealone  10630      " 


*  Transactions,  Am.  Soc.  C.E.,  Vol.  LX  (1908). 


62       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


;z; 
<! 


_^j 

-1^  -w 

_j^ 

M 

^  h 

^ 

o 

o    o 

o 

a 

a  a. 

Oh 

<u 

OJ 

rt 

tf 

>> 

>.  ^,  §i 

>> 

hiner 
hiner 
the  di 
t.    Os 

(H 

<D 

o; 

(U 

1 

^ 

^^^   § 

^ 

01 

bC 

bC    bC    °   "G 

bC 

"oJ 

.g 

C     S     bC    « 

■n  -c  .0  S 

_C 

fd 

"C 

'C 

0) 

OJ      <U      g      (U 

(B 

s    w 

fl      W 

o 

O                       g    CO 

o 

1  ^«  E 

£  ^  S  S   ^  1 

s  ^S  g 

5i  -^    o    t 

a;  ^    O    O    lh    aj 

<B  --5    o    fc; 

^      0)      02      c 

^     (K     OJ     M     q1    '^ 

r;     <D     03     O 

t3    oj    jh  x: 

tS      p      !h      ^^     ^      jZ] 

13     tU     ?2   -O 

a;    fi    o3    0" 

q;     i-i     03     cj  is  -1=1 

CD     Si     c^     a; 

fa  O  fL,  C 

fa  o  a<  f^  <i  o 

fa  O  Ph  o 

Tt<          00  cc 

CO          CO    lO   o   t^ 

1^ 

-fl 

,-H    t^    O    CC 

Ci   Oi    00   O    CO   (M 

00  05  CO  ci 

< 

»o  t^  »o  fC 

05    (M    O)   t>   lO   00 

CO   CO   1>    (N 

K 

CO   lO   lO   CO   Tt^  1> 

1-1     (M              >-H 

,      rj 

(N    00    C3i    CT> 

05 

3 

"S    o 

.-1        CO 

O    CO   lO    CO    T— 1    <3i 

CO  oi  lo  05 

^ 

S  -S 

i>  T-H  r^ 

.2  t; 

<^    CO    ^    lO   1-1    lO 

TtH    rtH    O   1> 

n 
o 

Ph    g 

^    Tf<    fO 

lO    (M    (M    (M    »C   i-H 

1— 1    I— (    ■* 

iJ        tH 

Oi           Ol    (M 

CO           lO    ^    CO    05 

CO 

H 

3  ^ 

00   CO    CO   IC 

I>    00   lO   CO   lO    O 

CO    CO   TtH    iM 

^ 

H 

3  ^ 

CO   1>    (N    (M 

CO   »0   l>   CO   CO   »o 

lO    CO    O    CO 

O 

^    i-H    (M    (M 

i-H 

CO  CO  ^  t^ 

P-( 

Oi 

CO           O    IC 

Tt<           1>    CO    »0    kO 

00 

s 

iM  CO  to  oc 

CO  O   O   Oi   o   »o 

t^   Oi    lO   t^ 

.2 

CO  O   00  cc 

>-<    00    --i    O    <N    ^' 

LQ    ■*    I— 1    CO 

o 

l>   t^   CO   t^ 

(M     T-H 

&    o. 

;3  ^ 

^ 

TJ  § 

c3 

StJ 

O    '^ 

-*-* 

0    in    cu    a. 

S    Q    „ 

,i3      r^      r£J      ^ 

03 

bC    tiC    M    &C                       «<-.   ^     s 

_ai  _«!  _a3  _co 

<i 

o3     cS     c3     o: 
^   ^   ^   ^ 
^      H      ^      !- 
c3     ci     o3     c: 

shes 
shes 
shes 
ouse 
indei 
ust 

;S  3  3  3 

^  ^  ^  ^ 
:3     3     3     3 

o  o  o  c 

<J  <1  <^  W  O  Q 

rt   P^  Ph   rt 

CO 

CO 

CD 

o 

O 

;h 

1    o  r^  cc 

1    O  1:^  l>  CD 

1     O   1^   CO 

03 

>Cl    --H    O    O    --H 

lO    i-H     O     rH 

>J 

O    S    05   5 

O    05    02    C2    CJJ 

O    03    05    Ci 

Oi  ^  ^  ^ 

05    i-H    .— 1    1— 1    T— 1 

O)    1-1     --H     --H 

■"^ 

I— 1 

1— 1 

d 

d 

d 

o 

o 

o 

■+J 

-f^ 

^ 

r^ 

^ 

_fcC 

>. 

_bC 

>.  >> 

_b£i 

>> 

-fj 

■+J  -t^ 

-Hi 

*Fh 

;h 

^ 

>, 

W 

G  c 

« 

O  O   c 

m 

3  c    1 

5 

^  ^-^S 

^    ^^^    o 

^  s^^ 

^  i  ^  ;2  .s 

OJ   r^     g     bC 

^  ^^.s 

West 
Milwi 
New 
Wash 

West 
Milw; 

New 
New 
Wash 

West 
Milw 

New 
Wash 

REFUSE  MATERIALS 


63 


It  is  obviously  important  that  chemical  analyses  of  refuse  should 
be  made  with  sufficient  uniformity  to  permit  of  securing  fair  compari- 
sons. The  procedures  described  below  are  recommended  by  Dr. 
Arthur  Lederer,  formerly  Chief  Chemist  of  the  Sanitary  District  of 
Chicago. 

Table  36. — -Chemical  Analysis  and  Calorific  Value  of  Duy  Rubbish, 

New  York  City. 

Determinations  made  by  D.  C.  Johnson 
(Data  from  Parsons,  Hering,  Whinery  Report,  1907) 


Average  of  two  chemical  analyses  of  dry 
rubbish  delivered  at  Delancey  Slip 
Station,  in  December,  1905 

Calorific  value  of  four  samples  of  dry 

rubbish  delivered  at  Delancey  Slip 

Station,  in  December,  1905 

Percentage 

Nitrogen 1.00 

Hydrogen 5 .  60 

Carbon 45.81 

Oxygen 39.01 

Ash 8.58 

B.t.u. 

Sample    No.    1,    by    Mahler 

calorimeter 7810 

Sample    No.    2,    by    Mahler 

calorimeter 7750 

Sample    No.    3,    by    Mahler 

calorimeter 7580 

Sample  No.  4,  from  chemical 

analysis 71.50 

Total 100.00 

The  first  important  proceeding  is  the  obtaining  of  the  sample. 
The  number  of  analyses  depends  on  whether  two  or  three  will  be 
sufficiently  representative  of  the  community  at  large,  or  whether  a 
larger  number  are  required,  in  order  to  show  characteristic  differences 
in  the  various  districts  of  the  city. 

Two  shovels  full  should  be  taken  from  each  of  ten  to  twenty 
wagon  loads,  and  should  be  well  mixed  on  a  smooth,  clean,  and  prac- 
tically water-tight  surface.  The  pile  should  be  halved  and  quartered, 
and  each  quarter  should  again  be  thoroughly  mixed.  The  sample 
for  the  analyses  should  be  taken  from  the  final  quarter. 

If  garbage  alone  is  to  be  sampled,  portions  from  different  parts  of 
the  final  quarter  should  be  selected,  placed  in  a  chopping  bowl,  beaten 
up,  and  comminuted,  before  the  final  sample  is  selected.  For  ship- 
ping the  samples  to  the  laboratory,  2-qt.  jars  are  convenient.  Dr. 
Lederer  says: 

a.  Determination  of  Moisture. — A  determination  of  the  moisture  content 
of  refuse  is  essential  for  all  analyses,  irrespective  of  the  filial  disposal  method. 

The  moisture  may  be  determined  by  exposing  a  large  (several  pounds) 
weighed  portion  of  well-mixed  refuse  to  dry  heat  (as  over  an  incinerator)  for 


64       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


E-i 


^ 

o 

35 

< 

W 

n 

K 

o 

< 

a 

^ 

ti 

o 

n1 

n 

Ui 

» 

Q 

< 

o 

^ 

< 

o 

< 

a> 

o 

a 

s 

w 

ta 

w 

■^ 

1 

t^ 

CO 

H 

I-] 

n 

<: 

H 

c 

00 

-* 

<N 

00 

C5 

00 

lO 

1-H 

tH 

00 

O 

!>■ 

t^ 

I>. 

CO 

CD 

CO 

CO 

t^ 

t^ 

t^ 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

d 

i 

05 

m 

'          '^        rf         U3 

CD 

(M 

o> 

CO 

t^ 

!>. 

Tt* 

o 

l> 

o 

5! 

d 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

00 

d 

O 

" 

03 

^ 

00 

00 

1-H 

03 

o 

o 

I> 

00 

<1 

CC 

(M 

(M 

<N 

CO 

C^l 

CO 

CO 

CO 

O) 

o 

O 

O 

o 

c 

o 

o 

o 

o 

d 

o 

» 

m 
Pm 

TjH 

-* 

cc 

O: 

Tf 

OC 

a- 

-* 

a- 

00 

00 

I> 

fC 

OC 

I> 

IC 

o- 

CO 

I> 

+J      4J 

^ 

Tt< 

^ 

^ 

CC 

CO         CO 

CO 

Tf 

■<* 

a 

0 

OC 

i-H 

OC 

1-H 

§? 

I-H          CD          O          Cfl 
00          00         CD         l> 

-w 

<M 

IM 

(N 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

C<l 

« 

is 

S 

< 
pq 

i  .2   i    ., 

"* 

ir. 

OC 

1— 

lO          CO 

CO 

•*       c^       no      1 

O     O   T3   O 

Ti^ 

a- 

a 

CO        1>        c 

CO        -*        1>        l>       1 

!» 

•a  _c  -2  „" 
^   ft  S"^ 

(M 

,- 

7— 

C<1 

»- 

CO 

C<1 

C<l         T-i         C<J        1 

^: 
0 

o 

Eh 

- 

J3 
PL| 

-* 

,_ 

(N 

CO 

1>        CO        O        O        C<1        o       1 

QC 

C 

c 

T™l 

CO 

1— 

TJH            CO 
1— 1           r- 

CO        T-H         O        o 

I-H            t-H            T-l            1-1 

1^ 
O 

1 

Pm 

-tJ 

IC 

T-J 

OC 

05           CO 

rt*         C^         C^         TtH         05        1 

o       o       o       Tf<       o       ec      t^ 

00          00          CO          IC          CO          CO          CD 

1-H 

1— 

^~ 

I— 

^' 

'^ 

1-H 

+:) 

© 

iC 

OC 

c 

00             Tt 

lO        CO       o        o      1 

c 

t- 

IC 

ec 

1>      Tt 

!>■          Tt<          1- 

Tt< 

0 

1 

[^ 

(M 

ec 

tr. 

CC 

00          CC 

co       lo       CO       T-H      1 

01 

o 

t-- 

i> 

1> 

t^ 

t^      1>      1>      l>      1>      1>      1 

1. 

a 

s 

<v    ^> 

s 

00 

oc 

IC 

ir. 

Th 

lO         CO 

CO       ■>* 

c^ 

3 

n  a 

03 

t. 

■a 

a 

a 
z, 

m    V 

a: 

^.^ 

cc 

a- 

CO 

CO 

OC 

00         CC 

lO 

n::!  "2  "a 

l> 

l> 

cc 

i—< 

Tj- 

1> 

CO 

c 

CO 

I-H 

°  o  a 

Tt< 

»c 

cc 

Tt 

JO         CO 

1-^ 

CO 

CO 

rH 

'^     03 

t^ 

a> 

(. 

1- 

tri 

^ 

a 

a 

s 

.4 

rC 

t. 

pC 

^ 

o 

11. 

< 

> 

^  1 

^ 

a 

'  1 

1 

a 

^  1 

c 

1 

a 

0) 
CJ 

a> 
Q 

REFUSE  MATERIALS 


65 


several  days  until  the  weight  has  become  constant.  If  the  determination  is 
made  in  the  laboratory,  take  about  1000  grams  of  well-mixed  refuse  and  rapidly 
reduce  it  in  a  grinding  machine  to  a  fine  powder,  so  that  it  will  pass  through  a 
sieve  having  circular  holes  of  one  millimeter  (0.0394  in.)  in  diameter.  In  case 
the  sample  cannot  be  ground,  reduce  it  otherwise  to  as  fine  a  state  as  possible. 
Before  evaporation  can  reduce  the  moisture,  determine  this  at  once  by  heating 
two  grams  (or  five  grams,  if  the  sample  is  very  coarse)  for  5  hours  in  a  water 
oven  at  the  temperature  of  boiling  water.  The  loss  of  weight  measures  the 
moisture. 

Table  38. — Chemical  Analyses  of  New  York  City  Refuse 


Constituents 


Carbon 

Hydrogen 

Nitrogen 

Oxygen 

Silica 

Iron  oxide  and  alumina .  .  . 

Lime 

Magnesia 

Phosphoric  acid 

Carbonic  acid 

Lead 

Tin 

Alkalies  and  undetermined 


Percentages  of  Refuse  Materials, 
BY  Weight 


Garbage 


43.10 
6.24 
3.70 

27.74 
7.56 
0.41 
4.26 
0.28 
1.47 
0.59 
0.20 

Trace 
4.45 


Coal  ashes 
and  cinders 


55.77 
0.75 
0.64 
2.37 
30.01 
8.98 
1.21 
Trace 
None 
None 
Trace 
sulphides 
I         0.27 


Rubbish 


42.39 
5.96 
3.41 

33.52 
6.49 
2.03 
2.26 
0.57 
0.10 
1.49 
0.52 

Trace 
1.21 


Calorific  Values,  in  British  Thermal  Units 


Calculated  from  above  analyses 

Averages  of  calorimeter  determinations 


7970 
8351 


8382 
8510 


7250 
7251 


These  chemical  analyses  are  of  dry  composite  samples  of  garbage,   coal  ashes  and 
cinders,  and  rubbish,  taken  in  1905  and  1906. 


In  order  to  prepare  the  sample  for  the  determination  of  the  other  chemical 
constituents,  it  is  advisable  to  air-dry  a  large  portion  (80  to  100  grams)  of  the 
finely  powdered  sample,  by  exposing  it  to  a  temperature  of  80  degrees  Centi- 
grade until  the  powder  feels  dry  between  the  fingers.  Determine  the  moisture 
content  of  the  air-dried  material  in  the  same  manner  as  given  above,  and  put 
it  into  a  weighing  flask  for  further  determinations. 


66       COLLECTION  AND  DLSPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

h.  Ash  and  Volatile  Matter. — Ignite  a  convenient  portion  (about  2  grams  of 
the  air-dried  material)  in  a  nickel  dish,  and  burn  until  free  of  carbon  at  the 
lowest  possible  heat.  Heat  to  low  redness  and  weigh.  The  residue,  calcu- 
lated by  percentage  on  a  completely  dried  basis,  represents  the  ash;  the  diff- 
erence represents  the  volatile  matter,  including  the  carbon. 

c.  Carbon  and  Hydrogen. — These  constituents  are  determined  by  what  is 
called  the  "elementary"  analysis.  A  detailed  description  of  this  process  can 
be  found  in  Fresenius'  "Quantitative  Chemical  Analysis,"  Vol.  2,  page  56;  and 
StUlman's  "Engineering  Chemistry,"  third  edition,  page  105.  The  following 
short  description  of  this  procedure  will  here  suffice :  The  combustion  appara- 
tus consists  of  a  set  of  Bunsen  burners  over  which  a  combustion  tube  is  sus- 
pended. The  combustion  tube  is  approximately  70  centimeters  long.  Into 
one  end  of  the  tube  place  granulated  cupric  oxide  for  a  distance  of  about  30 
centimeters.  Place  the  tube  in  a  combustion  furnace,  connect  it  with  a  drying 
apparatus  at  the  point  where  the  air  current  enters  the  tube.  Connect  the 
other  end  with  a  U  tube  filled  with  granulated  calcium  chloride.  The  U  tube 
is  connected  with  an  aspirator  and  the  air  is  drawn  through  the  apparatus 
very  slowly;  at  the  same  time  the  furnace  is  lighted  and  the  heat  gradually 
increased  until  all  of  the  cupric  oxide  has  reached  a  red  heat.  Maintain 
this  for  fifteen  minutes,  turn  off  the  gas,  and  continue  the  aspiration  of  air  until 
the  tube  is  nearly  cold.  This  preliminary  heating  is  necessary  to  eliminate 
any  moisture  that  may  be  in  the  tube  or  in  the  cupric  oxide. 

Transfer  0.5  gram  of  the  finely  powdered  air-dried  refuse  to  a  weighed 
porcelain  boat  and  place  it  in  the  combustion  tube  at  the  end  where  the  air 
current  enters  it.  The  calcium  chloride  tube  connected  with  the  other  end  is 
now  accurately  weighed,  as  well  as  the  potash  bulbs  which  follow  the  U  tube 
containing  the  calcium  chloride.  All  the  connections  are  properly  made,  the 
combustion  is  started  slowly,  and  oxygen  is  passed  through  the  apparatus. 
The  cupric  oxide  is  brought  to  a  red  heat  throughout  the  tube.  After  com- 
pleting the  combustion  (indicated  by  the  absence  of  black  particles  in  the  por- 
celain boat)  the  heat  is  turned  off  and  a  slow  current  of  oxygen  is  passed 
through  until  the  apparatus  is  nearly  cold.  The  hydrogen  in  the  refuse  is 
converted  into  water,  which  is  absorbed  by  the  calcium  chloride;  the  carbon 
is  converted  into  dioxide,  which  is  absorbed  in  the  potash  bulbs.  The  increase 
in  weight  of  these  tubes  is  recorded,  and  the  hydrogen  and  carbon  are  calcu- 
lated for  an  absolutely  dry  basis.  The  residue  remaining  in  the  porcelain  boat 
represents  the  true  ash. 

d.  Calorific  Value  (British  Thermal  Units  per  pound).- — Detailed  descrip- 
tions of  methods  of  determining  the  British  Thermal  Units  and  the  apparatus 
used  are  to  be  found  in  many  reference  books  on  chemistry  and  chemical 
engineering.  The  following  short  description  largely  follows  StUlman's 
"Engineering  Chemistry."  Various  calorimeters  are  in  use,  such  as  Mahler's, 
Parr's  and  Thompson's.  For  rapidity  and  accuracy,  the  Mahler's  bomb,  con- 
sisting of  a  porcelain -lined  steel  cylinder,  is  recommended.  The  calorimeter 
surrounding  the  bomb  is  of  thin  brass  and  contains  about  2.5  kilos  of  water. 
The  large  amount  of  water  practically  eliminates  all  error  due  to  evaporation. 
Before  this  instrument  can  be  used  for  determining  the  calorific  power,  it  is 
necessary  to  find  the  water  equivalent  of  the  bomb  and  its  appendages. 


REFUSE  MATERIALS  67 

About  two  grams  of  the  finely  powdered  refuse  to  be  tested  (powdered 
so  as  to  pass  through  a  sieve  having  10,000  meshes  to  the  square  inch)  are 
carefully  weighed,  and  placed  in  the  pan,  which  is  attached  to  the  cap  of  the 
bomb.  The  iron  ignition  wire  is  attached  in  such  a  manner  as  to  insure 
proper  ignition.  The  cap  is  screwed  into  place  and  oxygen  permitted  to  flow 
into  the  bomb.  When  the  pressure  is  about  25  atmospheres,  the  stop-cock  is 
closed  and  the  shell  placed  in  the  calorimeter  which  has  been  previously  partly 
filled  with  about  2400  grams  of  water.  The  thermometer  and  agitator  are 
adjusted,  and  the  whole  is  well  stirred,  to  obtain  a  uniform  temperature.  The 
temperature  is  then  observed  from  minute  to  minute  for  4  or  5  minutes,  so  as 
to  determine  its  rate  of  change.  The  charge  is  then  ignited  and  immediate 
combustion  takes  place  in  the  bomb.  The  temperature  is  observed  each 
minute  until  it  begins  to  fall  regularly,  and  then  each  minute  for  5  minutes 
in  order  to  ascertain  the  rate  of  cooling.  The  agitator  should  be  kept  going 
constantly  during  the  whole  period  of  observation.  The  shell  is  now  removed 
from  the  water,  the  gas  permitted  to  escape,  and  the  shell  itself  is  opened. 
The  shell  should  be  rinsed  out  with  distilled  water  to  collect  the  acid  formed 
during  combustion.  The  calorific  value  of  the  weighed  refuse  is  then  cal- 
culated as  follows : 

Let  Q  =  Calorific  value  of  the  weighed  refuse, 

T  =  Observed  difference  in  temperature, 

a   =  Correction  for  cooling, 

P  =  Weight  of  water  taken  in  the  calorimeter, 

P'  =  Water  equivalent  of  shell  and  appendages, 

p  =  Weight  of  nitric  acid  formed, 

p'  =  Weight  of  iron  wire  helix, 
0.23  calorie  =heat  of  formation  of  one  gram  of  nitric  acid, 
1 .6    calories  =  heat  of  combustion  of  one  gram  of  iron . 
Then  Q  =  (ra)  {PP')-{0.23p  l.Qp'). 

The  calorific  value,  expressed  as  calories  in  this  determination,  is  changed 
into  British  thermal  units  by  multiplying  by  3.968. 

When  garbage  is  reduced  for  the  recovery  of  grease  and  tankage, 
analyses  are  required  in  order  to  indicate  the  content  of  phosphoric 
acid,  ammonia,  potash,  and  grease.  The  following  methods  of  anal- 
ysis are  taken  largely  from  Bulletin  107,  Revised,  of  the  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Bureau  of  Chemistry.  Similar  methods  are  described  in 
the  reports  of  the  Committee  on  Fats  and  Greases  of  the  American 
Chemical  Society. 

e.  Phosphoric  Acid. — Dissolve  two  grams  of  the  air-dried  sample  in  30 
cc.  of  concentrated  nitric  acid  and  a  small  quantity  of  hydrochloric 
acid,  and  boil  until  the  organic  matter  is  destroyed.  After  solution,  cool, 
dilute  to  200  or  250  cc,  mix  and  pour  on  a  dry  filter.  Take  an  ahquot 
portion  of  the  solution  prepared  above,  corresponding  to  0.25  gram,  0.50 
gram,  or  1  gram,  neutralize  with  ammonium  hydroxide,  and  clear  with  a 
few  drops  of  nitric  acid.     Add  about  15  grams  of  dry  ammonium  nitrate  or  a 


68       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

solution  containing  that  amount.  To  the  hot  solution  add  50  cc.  of  molybdate 
solution  (see  Bulletin  107)  for  every  decigram  of  phosphoric  acid  (P2O6)  that 
is  present.  Digest  at  about  65  degrees  C.  for  an  hour,  filter  and  wash  with 
cold  water,  or  preferably  with  ammonium  nitrate  solution.  Test  the  filtrate 
for  phosphoric  acid  by  renewed  digestion  and  addition  of  more  molybdate 
solution.  Dissolve  the  precipitate  on  the  filter  with  ammonium  hydroxide 
and  hot  water,  and  wash  into  beaker  to  a  bulk  of  not  more  than  100  cc.  Nearly 
neutralize  with  hydrochloric  acid,  and  cool  and  add  magnesia  from  a  burette; 
add  slowly  (about  a  drop  per  second),  stirring  vigorously.  After  fifteen  min- 
utes, add  12  cc.  of  ammonium  hydroxide  solution,  specific  gravity — .90.  Let 
this  stand  for  some  time,  two  hours  is  usually  enough,  filter;  wash  with  2.5% 
ammonia  until  practically  free  from  chlorides,  ignite  to  whiteness,  or  to  a 
grayish  white,  and  weigh.  Calculate  the  Mg2P207  precipitate  to  per 
cent.  P2O6. 

/.  Ammonia. — Place  from  0.7  to  3.5  grams  of  the  substance  to  be  analyzed, 
according  to  its  proportion  of  nitrogen,  in  a  digestion  flask  with  approximately 
0.7  gram  of  mercuric  oxide,  or  its  equivalent  in  metallic  mercury,  and  from 
20  to  30  cc.  of  concentrated  sulphuric  acid.  Digest  until  the  mixture  is  color- 
less or  nearly  so,  or  until  oxidation  is  complete  (with  some  materials,  as  leather, 
cheese,  milk  products,  etc.,  it  is  necessary  to  digest  for  several  hours) .  Remove 
the  flask  from  the  flame,  and,  while  still  hot,  drop  potassium  permanganate  in 
carefully,  in  small  quantities  at  a  time,  until,  after  shaking,  the  liquid  remains 
a  green  or  purple  color.  After  cooling,  dilute  with  about  200  cc.  of  water, 
add  a  few  pieces  of  granulated  zinc  or  pumice  stone,  in  order  to  keep  the  con- 
tents of  the  flask  from  bumping,  and  25  cc.  of  potassium  sulphide  solution 
(40  grams  of  commercial  potassium  sulphide  in  one  liter  of  water.)  Next 
add  50  cc.  of  soda  solution  (saturated  solution  of  sodium  hydroxide  free 
from  nitrates),  or  sufficient  to  make  the  reaction  strongly  alkaline.  Con- 
nect the  flask  with  the  condenser  and  distill  until  all  ammonia  has  passed  into 
the  standard  sulphuric  acid  in  the  receiving  flask.  The  first  150  cc.  of  the 
distillate  will  generally  contain  all  the  ammonia.  The  distillate  is  then  titrated 
with  standard  alkali.     One  cubic  centimeter  of  H2SO4  N/2  =  0.0085  gm.  NH3. 

g.  Potash. — Saturate  10  grams  of  the  dried  material  with  strong  sulphuric 
acid,  and  ignite  in  a  muffler  at  a  low  red  heat  to  destroy  organic  matter.  Add  a 
little  strong  hydrochloric  acid,  warm  slightly  in  order  to  loosen  the  mass  from 
the  side,  and  dilute  to  500  cc.  with  water.  Evaporate  50  cc.  of  the  solution 
nearly  to  dryness,  add  1  cc.  of  dUute  sulphuric  acid  (1  to  1),  evaporate  to  dry- 
ness, and  ignite  to  whiteness  with  full  red  heat.  Dissolve  the  residue  in  hot 
water,  using  at  least  20  cc.  for  each  decigram  of  potassium  oxide,  add  a  few 
drops  of  hydrochloric  acid  and  an  excess  of  platinum  solution  (for  the  prepara- 
tion of  the  platinum  solution  consult  Bulletin  107).  Evaporate  in  a  water 
bath  to  a  thick  paste  and  treat  the  residue  with  80%  alcohol,  sp.gr.  0.8645, 
avoiding  the  absorption  of  ammonia.  Wash  the  precipitate  thoroughly  with 
80%  alcohol,  both  by  decantation  and  on  the  filter,  continuing  the  washing 
after  the  filtrate  is  colorless.  Wash  finally  with  10  cc.  of  the  ammonia  chloride 
solution  (see  Bulletin  107  for  its  preparation)  five  or  six  times.  Wash  again 
thoroughly  with  80%  alcohol,  and  dry  the  precipitate  for  30  minutes  at  100 
degrees  Centigrade.     Weigh  as  K2Pt2Cl6  and  calculate  to  per  cent.  K2O, 


•     REFUSE  MATERIALS  69 

h.  Grease  or  Crude  Fat. — Extract  about  2  grams  of  the  air-dried  material 
with  several  small  portions  of  boiling  anhydrous  alcohol-free  ether,  rubbing 
the  sides  and  bottom  of  the  dish  to  insure  complete  solution  of  the  fat.  Filter 
the  ether  solution  through  a  5-centimeter  filter  paper  into  a  small  Soxhlet 
flask.  Evaporate  the  ether  slowly,  dry  the  fatty  extract  for  half  an  hour  at 
100  degrees  Centigrade,  put  the  flask  into  a  desiccator,  cool,  and  weigh. 

Further  data  referring  to  chemical  analyses  may  be  found  in 
Chapters  XIV,  XV,  and  XVI. 

H.— EUROPEAN  AND  OTHER  FOREIGN  DATA 

Refuse  collection  and  disposal  has  been  developed  with  success  in 
England  and  Germany,  and  American  engineers,  within  the  last  20 
years,  have  given  their  plants  much  study.  As  a  proper  appreciation 
of  this  foreign  work  requires  an  understanding  of  the  quantities  and 
character  of  the  refuse  material  produced,  sufficient  data  have  been 
tabulated  to  indicate  the  unit  quantities  and  the  composition  of  some 
European  refuse,  based  on  several  trips  of  investigation  made  by  the 
authors  through  England,  France,  and  Germany. 

It  is  the  common  practice  in  Europe  to  place  house  refuse  of  all 
kinds  in  the  same  can  and  to  collect  it  in  the  same  wagon,  so  that  it  is 
dealt  with  as  mixed  refuse.  In  appearance  it  is  dry,  frequently  even 
dusty,  and  has  a  musty  odor.  It  is  not  as  objectionable  a  material  as 
garbage  generally  is  in  America.  The  people  in  those  countries  are 
less  wasteful  than  people  in  America,  and  the  quantities  of  refuse 
produced  per  capita  are  materially  smaller. 

A  few  years  ago  the  only  prominent  exceptions  to  the  common 
practice  were  found  in  Vienna,  and  in  Charlottenburg,  adjoining  Ber- 
lin. A  report  of  an  investigation  of  refuse  disposal,  made  for  Char- 
lottenburg in  1908  by  Dr.  Thiesing,  includes  records  of  refuse  materials 
collected  separately,  somewhat  in  accordance  with  American  practice, 
as  follows:  In  ashes,  without  sweepings,  the  following  percentages, 
by  weight,  were  found:  Phosphoric  acid,  0.27  to  0.36;  potassium, 
0.38  to  0.55;  calcium,  16.24  to  14.25.  The  following  percentages, 
by  weight,  were  found  in  garbage:  Crude  protein,  3.75  to  4.87; 
fat,  2.31  to  3.98;  digestible  crude  protein,  2.89  to  4.12;  pure  albumen, 
3.42  to  4.64;  carbohydrates,  10.78  to  5.83;  crude  fiber,  1.28  to  3.22; 
ash,  4.81  to  7.60;  and  water,  77.07  to  74.50. 

Other  European  statistics  of  refuse  quantities  are  given  in  Tables 
39  to  48. 

The  chemical  composition  of  refuse  in  England  and  Germany  also 
differs  from  that  in  American  cities.  No  analyses  of  European 
garbage  are  available  to  show  the  content  of  grease  and  tankage,  except 
those  made  for  Charlottenburg,  but  several  analyses  have  been  made 
to  show  the  calorific  value  of  refuse. 


70       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 
Table  39. — Weight  of  Mixed  Refuse  in  Some  European  Cities 


City 


Year 


Population 


Average  Weight, 
IN  Pounds 


Per 
cubic  foot 


Per  capita 
per  annum 


London 

Paris 

Berlin i 

Hamburg 

Sheffield 

Cologne 

Edinburgh 

Frankfort 

Newcastle 

Charlottenburg 

Zurich 

Croydon 

Barmen :........ 

Wiesbaden 

Ealing 

Chiswick 

Watford 

Greenock 


1905 
1895 
1907 
1888 
1905 
1908 
1905 
1908 
1910 
1907 
1907-08 
1910 
1913 
1910 
1910 
1902 
1913 
1908 
1913 


4,100,000 

2,500,000 

2,100,000 

1,677,135 

900,000 

463,000 

390,000 

350,500 

350,000 

264,500 

256,200 

180,000 

170,450 

140,000 

100,000 

65,000 

40,000 

40,000 

16,500 


44.0 


36.9 

34.1 
55.0 

27.5 


17.2 


15.4 


Average  of  14  American  cities 
Average  of  8  English  cities . . 
Average  of  77  German  cities . 


560 
513 

315 

390 
573 
295 
300 
215 
260 
381 
260 
484 
270 
365 
465 
496 
372 
402 


860 
450 
319 


*  Large  floating  population 

Mr.  Young,  of  Glasgow,  states  that  although  in  London  the  "fairly- 
combustible  matter"  in  the  refuse  is  64%,  in  Edinburgh  it  is  26%. 

The  chemical  analyses  of  refuse  from  Kings  Norton,  near  Birming- 
ham, England,  are  given  in  the  published  specifications,  as  follows: 

Element,  etc.  Percentage,  by  weight 

Carbon 36.80 

Hydrogen 0.29 

Nitrogen 0.29 

Sulphur 0.19 

Oxygen 7 .  30 

Ash 41.70 

Moisture 12.12 


98.69 


REFUHE  MATERIALS 


71 


Table  40. — A. — Physical  Analy.sios  (jf  London  Refuse,  in  Percentages. 

(From  "Disposal  of  Towns'  Refuse,"  by  Goodrich  (p.  204),  1901) 


AUTHOKITV 


Dr.  J.  Russell, 
1888 


G.  Weston, 

1880 
(Paddington) 


Coal 

Breeze,  cinder 

Fine  ash 

Garbage,  vegetable  and  animal  matter 

Paper 

Rags,  clothing,  bagging,  etc 

Bottles 

Metals 

Tins 

Bones 

Glass 

Crockery 

Straw,  fiber,  etc 


0.84 
G3.69 
19.51 
4.61 
4.28 
0.39 
0.96 
0.21 
0.79 
0.48 
0.47 
0.55 
3.22 


0.15 
28.80 
52.60 
14.20 

0.43 
0.30 
0.37 

0.25 

2.90 


100.00 


100.00 


B. — Chemical   and   Other   Analyses   of  Winter   Refuse 
FROM    Kings   Norton,   Near   Birmingham,   England.     (Leask) 


Carbon . .  . 

36.80 

Hydrogen. 

0.29 

Oxygen . .  . 

7.30 

Nitrogen. . 

0.29 

Sulphur. .  . 

0.19 

Moisture. . 

12.12 

Ash 

41.70 

98.69 

Theoretical  Calor- 
ific Value 
B.t.u. 


Composition  of  Refuse 


Winter.  . 
Spring. .  . 
Summer . 

4500 
4300 
3000 

Yearly 

% 

Sept. 

% 

Garbage     

39.5 

45.4 

9.3 

5.2 

49.37 

38.80 
7.73 

4.28 

Coal  and  fine  dust. . 

Rubbish 

Glass,  metals,  etc . . 

One  ton  of  2240  lb.  measured  3.75  cu.  yd. 

Paris,  which  has  been  very  conservative,  and  has  not  made  much 
progress  in  refuse  disposal  in  the  last  20  years,  collected  in  1895,  as 
an  average,  415  liters  or  233  kg.  (514  lb.)  per  annum,  or  1.137  liters  or 
0.639  kg.  (1.40  lb.)  per  day  per  inhabitant.  The  composition  is 
reported  to  be  about  the  same  as  in  other  cities,  but  no  analysis  is 


72       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

given.  Tests  have  shown  the  calorific  value  of  Paris  refuse  to  be  about 
4500  B.t.u.  The  privileges  of  the  trained  rag  pickers,  who  search, 
not  only  the  street  surfaces,  but  also  the  house  cans,  which  they  dump 
temporarily  on  a  cloth  for  the  purpose  of  looking  for  articles  which 
can  be  cleaned  and  sold  by  them,  would  cause  analyses  probably  to  be 
somewhat  different  from  those  in  other  cities. 

Table  41. — Refuse  Incinerated  in  Plymouth,  England 

(From  a  paper  entitled   "The   Collection  and   Disposal   of   House   Refuse  in  Plymouth," 
by  James  Paton,  Borough  Engineer  and  Surveyor) 

Description  of  refuse  received  at  the  Destructor  Works  irom  April  1, 
1908,  to  March  31,  1909: 

Percentages 

Ashes  and  clinkers 66 .  74 

Bones 0.08 

Bottles 0.12 

Condemned  meat  and  animals'  carcasses 0 .  45 

Broken  glass  and  crockery 2.66 

Fish  offal 1.52 

Mattresses  and  bedding 0 .  07 

Old  iron  and  steel 0 .  08 

Paper 12.84 

Rags 0.13 

Straw 0.54 

Tins 0.53 

Vegetable  refuse 9 .  44 

Bagging 0 .  02 

Garden  refuse 4 .  78 

Total 100.00 

The  following  dead  animals  were  also  destroyed: 

Dogs,  199;  cats,  331;  bullocks,  106|;  pigs,  31;  sheep,  69;  rabbits,  81; 
fowls,  4;    calves,  6;   lamb,  1;   monkey,  1;    deer,  1;    goat,  1.     Total,  831  i. 

An  approximate  average  figure  for  the  quantity  of  mixed  refuse 
produced  per  capita  in  German  cities  is  stated  to  be  1  lb.  per  day,  as 
compared  with  2  to  3  lb.  per  day  in  American  cities.  The  difference 
is  important  when  comparisons  are  made  between  European  and 
American  practice,  in  both  refuse  collection  and  disposal. 

Fig.  9  is  an  analysis  of  the  refuse  of  Copenhagen  as  given  by  de 
Fodor. 

Combined  refuse  in  England  contains  more  unburned  coal  and 
more  waste  organic  matter  than  in  Germany.     The  products  of  com- 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


73 


bustion — clinker  and  ashes  —  in  England  are  only  one-third  of  the 
weight,  in  Germany  one-half,  and  in  America  aVjout  one-fourth.  In 
America,  therefore,  possibly  three-fourths  may  be  burned. 

Jan.    Feb,    Mar.    Apr.    May    June   July     Aug.    Sept.    Oct.    Nov.    Dec. 


70 


30 


^ 

!oistu 

e 

^ 

^ 

^ 

N 

X 

^ 

^ 

o 

O 

o 

^ 

■^ 

^ 

-^ 

^ 

t- 

03 

y 

^ 

^V 

\ 

^ 

Con 

ibusti 

ble 

cq 

y 

/ 

Noi 

i-com 

3ustib 

le 



Fig.  9. — Analysis  of  Copenhagen  Mixed  Refuse. 

According    to    Petermann    (Gembloux)   and    Richard   (Brussels), 
household  waste  from  various  sources,  from  which  13%  of  water  had 
previously  been  removed  by  drying,  contains  by  weight: 
Organic  matter: 

Nitrogen 0.392% 

Carbon,  hydrogen,  and  oxygen 26.608% 


27.000% 
Mineral  matter: 

Phosphoric  acid 0.426% 

Potassium 0.074% 

Sand 67.000% 

Salts  of  iron,  lime,  aluminum,  etc 5 .  500% 


73.000% 


Total 100.000% 


74       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


« 
o 

En 

Iz; 
O 


PL, 

12; 

o 

o 
O 


fO    05 

o 

l-H     (N 

(M 

00  t^ 

r^ 

o 

00 

CD 

Oi 

CO   1> 

1— 1 

(M    C55 

O^ 

(M    O 

o 

CM 

o 

CM 

^ 

o 

Q 

00  (m" 

o 

O    lO 

o 

o  o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

T-H 

o 

CO 

>o 

'"' 

r-  »o 

lO 

00    iQ 

on 

(M 

05 

r/1 

CT) 

d 

00 

Oi  o 

lO 

T-H     t^ 

r-H 

<N    CD 

o 

C~> 

CN 

'^l 

o 

'Z 

05    »0 

>o 

O    CD 

o 

O    O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

i-H 

o 

fO 

'^ 

I-H 

T— 1       1— 1 

,— 1 

T^^   O 

^1 

lO    CD 

o 

00 

CD 

OS 

CO 

(N    >0 

o 

(M    --H 

CM 

iM    O 

T-H 

1-H 

o 

r— 1 

or; 

■*^ 

o 

O 

o  •* 

^ 

o  t- 

o 

o  o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CM 

o 

l-H     CO 

^ 

'"' 

O    Oi 

CO 

o  00 

(N 

00    lO 

on 

r^ 

»o 

r^ 

00 

• 

CO  t^ 

Oi 

(M    <M 

r-<     O 

o 

o 

CD 

o 

1— 1   1— I 

ic 

O   t^ 

C 

o  c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

CM 

o 

m 

T-H     CO 

'^ 

T-H 

(M    05 

Id 

05    00 

(M 

to   CO 

oa 

00 

03 

CO 

o 

<N    »0 

I> 

IM    CC 

(M 

CM   o 

c 

CM 

r^ 

o 

<1 

(M    lO 

t^ 

O    05 

O 

o  o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

I— 

o 

.-H    CO 

cc 

1— i 

00 

Tt<     CO 

Oi 

CO  t^ 

CO 

00    CO 

CM 

CO 

00 

Ol 

CD 

' ! 

>. 

00    CD 

t> 

CO    02 

<M 

CM    O 

Ol 

o 

CM 

o 

3 

(N  r^ 

c«: 

O    r- 

O 

o  c 

d 

c 

c 

C 

Oi 

o 

j= 

,-1     TfH 

<M 

1—1 

T-H 

O    05 

CT> 

t^    (M 

00 

i>  a> 

o 

CM 

00 

00 

o 

■rt 

1>  t^ 

C 

^  a 

(> 

CO  c 

1— 

Cv 

c 

1— 

h- 

o 

s 

o 

o 

3 

^  c^ 

a 

o  T- 

c 

o  c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

C^ 

o 

O 

1-5 

(M    -*i 

I— 1 

T— ( 

1-H 

1^ 

1--  o 

(M 

^    05 

CO 

00    02 

h- 

CC 

lO 

CO 

CO 

i-H  o; 

T- 

Tfl     C 

Cs 

CM    C 

c 

o 

CO 

^ 

03 

t>  b- 

-* 

O    00 

o 

d  o 

o 

c 

o 

o 

l-H 

o 
o 

>> 

,-1  CO 

CO 

T-H 

XI 

Tt^    O 

tC 

(M   t- 

CC 

1>  1> 

or 

h- 

CC 

io 

or 

»o  a 

iC 

Tt<    CC 

(> 

CO   c 

c 

o 

1- 

CD 

<D 

tn 

o 

< 

r^  o 

1> 

o  en 

o 

o  c 

o 

c 

c 

c 

c^ 

c:; 

■*j 

(M    '^ 

rH 

rt 

Ph 

CO  1— 1 

c 

Oi    "O 

CT 

05    IC 

or 

c^ 

LC 

^^ 

CO 

lO    Tt 

CO 

CO  o; 

(> 

Tti  c 

c: 

c- 

^ 

a- 

Lh 

o 

§ 

o  c; 

Th 

O   Q: 

c 

o  c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

o 

3 

CO    "* 

T-H 

13 

CO  a- 

iC 

CD   O- 

CC 

CD    CD 

o- 

'Tt 

CC 

CM 

a 

(M   t^ 

b- 

O   CD 

Tf 

Tfi  c 

r~ 

1— 

r~ 

1-^ 

IC 

(» 

,-1    C 

Tf 

O    X 

c 

o  c 

c 

c 

c 

c 

oq 

o 
o 

c 

h 

CO     Tf 

•—1 

•c- 

05  cr 

oc 

lO  c 

^ 

Oi    CC 

or 

or 

CC 

IC 

c 

o 

CO  c^ 

1> 

lO    .- 

IC 

CO  c 

c: 

c 

T— 

IC 

§ 

c 

o 

t^  »^ 

cc 

o  oc 

c- 

o  c 

c- 

r- 

c- 

c- 

CC 

o 

- 

IM     Tf 

T-H 

o 

o 

"- 

h 

Cl 

03 

a 

03 

bJD 

CO 

O 
03 

"o 

e 

0, 
C 

cl 

72 

,_| 

o 

aj 

c3 

n 

6 
o 

i 

.y 

c 

^ 

^ 
£ 

O 

T3 

o3 

^<  y= 

-c 

B  ^ 

^^    ^ 

&-« 

oj 

t: 

•^  "S 

5    c 

>. 

"b 

) 

c 

X5    a, 

o3    t 

bJ)  E 
> 

O  PC 

C 

Q, 

c 

o: 

1— 

c 
c 

a: 
rr 
c. 

REFUSE  MATERIALS 


75 


Table  43. — Weight  of  Refuse   in  New  York,  London,  and  Berlin, 
Excluding  Street  Sweepings 

(In  pounds  per  capita  per  annum) 


Kind  of  refuse 

New  York, 

Commission 

(1907) 

London. 
Weston 
(1888) 

Berlin 

Bohm  &  Crohn 

(1898) 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Totals 

181 

936 

93 

78 

454 

28 

100 

171 

44 

1210 

560 

315 

Table  44. — ^Analyses  of  Berlin  Mixed  House  Refuse  which  Did  Not 

Burn  without  Added  Fuel  (Bohm  and  Grohn). 

Percentages  by  weight 

A. — Physical  Analyses,  1895 


Components 


Coal 

Cinders  (partly  burned  coal) 

Siftings  (mainly  ashes) 

Clinkers 

Paper 

Rags 

Bones 

Wood 

Sundry  vegetable  and  animal  rriatter 

White  glass 

Colored  glass 

Stoneware ..." 

Iron 

Tin  cans  and  other  metals 


March 
and 
April 


0.13 
1.20 

57.12 
1.58 
2.54 
0.74 
0.51 
0.14 

29.02 
0.46 
0.69 
5.01 
0.19 
0.67 


100.00 


July 

and 

August 


0.21 

1.32 
43.19 
1.18 
5.97 
1.57 
0.55 
0.66 
36.07 
0.51 
0.89 
7.19 
0.20 
0.49 


100 . 00 


Averages 


0.17 


26 
16 
38 
26 
15 
0.53 
0.40 
32.54 
0.48 
0.79 
6.10 
0.20 
0.58 


100.00 


B. — Chemical  Analyses,  April, 

1895 

Description  of  material 

Hygroscopic 
water 

Combined 

water 

and  C02 

Combustible 
oiganic 
matter 

Incombustible 

and  fixed 

matter 

Original  material 

17.62 
10.91 

26.55 

5.54 

2.54 
9.53 

11.94 
13.27 
10.20 

54.90 

73.28 

53.   72 

Siftings,  57% 

Coarse  material,  43% 

76       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  45. — Monthly  Production  of  Refuse  at  Charlottenburg, 

Germany 

(Data  from  Report  by  Professor  Dr.  Thiesing,  Berlin,  1908) 
The  population  of  Charlottenburg  in  1908  was  256,200 


Year 

Month 

Average  Quantity,  in  Tons  per  Day 

Garbage 

Ashes  and 

sweepings 

from  houses 

Rubbish 

Total 

1907 
1908 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

January 

February 

March 

April 

30 
28 
22 
22 
30 
32 
27 
24 
23 
18 
23 
24 

97 

78 

72 

78 

88 

93 

111 

138 

142 

132 

125 

121 

26 
17 
21 
20 
30 
39 
28 
32 
28 
29 
33 
38 

153 
123 
115 
120 
144 
164 
166 
194 
193 
179 
189 
183 

Annual 
Percent 
Pounds 

averages 

ages 

per  capita  per  year 

25 
16 
61 

106 

67 

254 

28 
17 
64 

159 
100 

379 

On  the  other  hand,  the  following  results  were  obtained  for  the 
garbage  as  delivered  at  the  municipal  unloading  station  in  Brussels, 
(by  weight  on  dry  basis): 

Organic  matter: 

Nitrogen 0.409% 

Carbon,  hydrogen,  and  oxygen 23.471% 

23.880% 
Mineral  matter: 

Phosphoric  acid 0.628% 

Potassium 0.322% 

Sand 66.887% 

Salts  of  iron,  lime,  aluminum,  etc 8.283% 

76.120% 
Total 100.000% 


REFUSE  MATERIALS 


77 


1— 1 

>o  O  i:d  CN 

CO   CO   O   Tj- 

CC 

c 

lO    CO    "O 

CO 

C 

TtH     05     O     -^ 

O   C" 

c/ 

o  o  t 

c 

c; 

C) 

§2 

CO 

CO   (> 

lO   .- 

1-1   O   CD   O   1- 

c 

CO  o  o 

c 

c 

1-5 

CN 

>- 

CN 

^~ 

co" 

n 

CO    l>-    r- 

■>*    05   »0   GO   (N 

1— 

t^   CO   to   CM 

«c 

If: 

.     O 

1^ 

lO   Ttl   IC   c 

CO   '^ 

c 

•«t 

r)<   .-H    ■*   C 

c 

»-< 

O    Ol 

<r 

<- 

(M    T- 

O   O   CD   O   CO   C 

o  o  o  c 

c 

c: 

Q 

^ 

(N 

(N 

O'"  ~ 

t^ 

(M 

r-  T)- 

a- 

CO 

or 

IC 

o- 

lO    C3    CO    >— 

cc 

■  s 

1^ 

■*  oc 

r1 

r- 

cc 

CD   O    O   C 

c 

o 

■^  s 

C^l 

p.  2 

•c 

CC 

<M    — 

V— 

<3 

c 

c 

c- 

c 

1-1  o  o  c 

c 

c 

02 

cc 

CM 

" 

(N 

>o 

CO  o: 

■^ 

h- 

(T 

o- 

»c 

c- 

^     CM     I>     r- 

»^ 

^§ 

as 

t- 

IQ    ,-( 

1> 

t^ 

CO 

cc 

c 

cc 

co  o  ^  c 

c 

cc 

t^ 

«3 

(M    .-H 

C 

C 

^ 

c 

^ 

c 

o  o  d  c 

c 

c 

S 

cc 

(N 

CN 

lO 

CO 

to 

CO    OC 

"+ 

m 

a- 

^ 

cc 

CD    t>.   CM    cc 

CM 

r~- 

.    O 

CO 

CD 

(M    O 

1> 

o 

>c 

c 

CM 

t^     rM     CO     C 

o 

c 

>o 

CO 

lO    rH 

o 

o 

CO 

c 

cr 

c 

o  o  o  c 

c: 

c 

CO 

CM 

CM 

™"  ^ 

o 

O 

o  o 

or 

CO 

O 

^ 

f- 

<r 

O   CO  o 

iC 

IC 

.  o 

o 

05 

t^   rt< 

o: 

CO 

■* 

o: 

rt< 

t^    »0    CO 

c 

CO 

CO 

cq 

t^   CO 

I— 1 

o 

CO 

c 

1-H 

CM 

■*   O   1-1 

c 

c 

O 

T— 1 

i-H 

(N 

CM 

--^ 

o  ^ 

CO 

(— ) 

o  c 

cr 

T— 1 

^ 

h- 

iC 

■^ 

1-H     lO     0>     1> 

1-H 

h- 

^    o 

t^ 

CR 

05    CO 

oc 

C^J 

C^ 

CC 

cc 

"t 

CD   CM    CM    cc 

c 

c 

>>   C3 

r^ 

iC 

lO    CO 

^ 

c 

r- 

c 

^ 

CM    O   --H    C 

c 

c 

o    " 

1-5 

CO 

"-^ 

a 

v_^^ 

CD 

^ 

<M    cc 

ir 

Tf 

or 

c 

c 

cc 

-*    CO   l> 

»c 

.  o 

c 

T}^    (M 

^ 

(M 

'^ 

cc 

CO  I-H  00 

rt< 

%  2 

<r 

■*    >- 

r- 

c. 

(M 

c 

CM 

c 

o  o  o 

c 

'—1 

S 

'^ 

CJ 

CM 

a>     • 

> 

o 

-D 

03 

OJ 

^ 

■+J 

fl 

a; 

CO 

1=1 

m 

Q 

oc 

£ 

a 

c 

'3 
S 

,£5 

-  ^ 

6 

a: 

c 
c 
I— 

cr 

a, 
c 
c 

tr 

bj 
bl 

0. 

D    bl 

D    0. 
> 

C 

73 
C 

-0 
c 
c 

c 

Ah 

s 

0 

IB 

o3 

.3    CD 
C     Q 


Sou 


78       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  47. — Proximate  Calorific  Value  of  House  Refuse  in 
Cities  of  Central  Europe. 


British 

City 

per  pound 
of  refuse 

Reference 

Barmen 

4050 
8050 
4140 

Zeitschrift,    Oester.   Ing.    und 

Beuthen,  Silesia 

Dortmund 

Frankfurt,  a/M 

4086 
2880 

Arch.-Verein,  No.  35,  1906, 
p.  497 

Miskolcz,  Hungary 

Vienna  (Florisdorf),  winter. . 

2943 

Vienna  (Guerecki),  winter. . . 

2876 

Wiesbaden 

4140 

J 

Berlin,  summer  refuse 

1890 

Charlottenburg,  summer. .  .  . 

1980 

Elektrotechnische    Zeit.,    Heft 

Charlottenburg,  winter 

1800 

26,  1907,  p.  643 

Mainz 

3780 

Berlin,  winter  refuse 

1314 

Gesundheits  Ing.,  No.  42,  1908, 
p.  664 

Hamburg 

2556 
2198 
3240 

\    Calculated  from  local  data 

Die  Stddt.  Verbrennungsanstalt, 
L.  Boto,  1907,  p.  8 

Hanover 

Kiel 

Pforzheim 

3600 

Zeit.  Ing.,  No.  40,  1907,  p.  665 

Table  48. — Calorific  Values  op  Certain  Refuse  Components 


Components 

English  Refuse  (Dawson) 

German 

Refuse 

(Leask) 

B.t.u. 

Artificially 
dried 
B.t.u. 

With   natural 
'moisture 
B.t.u. 

Coal 

14,000 

12,000 

6,000 

8,000 

5,000 
3,800 

9334    1 

8000    j 

4000 

5334 

3334 

2534 

9380 

540 

3600 

1620 

(    3950 

\    5400 

1    2165 

6280 

5750 

Coke 

Breeze  and  cinder 

Offal  and  bones .... 

Bones 

Rags .    . 

Hair 

Paper 

Straw 

Vegetable  refuse j 

Wood 

Sawdust 

REFUSE  MATERIALS  79 

According  to  Mr.  G.  Weston,  the  refuse   of    London-Paddington 
had  the  following  composition: 

Ashes 52 . 6% 

Cinders 28.8% 

Animal  and  vegetable  wastes 14  2% 

Broken  stoneware 2 . 9% 

Coal 0.15% 

Bones 0.25% 

Rags 0.425% 

Old  iron 0 .  35% 

Other  metals 0 .  025% 

White  glass 0.075% 

Colored  glass 0.225% 

100.000% 
According  to  Mr.  Henry  Whiley,  in  Manchester,  where  at  the  time 

the  pail  system  of  dry  closets  was  used  for  the  collection  of  excreta, 

this  refuse  had  the  following  composition: 

Ashes  and  excreta  mixed  with  ashes 64 .  50% 

Dust  and  cinders 34. 55% 

Fish  waste  and  bones 0 .  15% 

Dead  animals 0 . 05% 

Shoes,  rags,  paper,  etc 0.05% 

Vegetable  matter 0 .  05% 

Glass,  pottery,  and  bricks 0 .  60% 

Old  metal 0.05% 

100.00% 
Table  42  shows  the  component  parts  of  the  refuse  of  Shanghai, 

China,  for  each  month,  as  contained  in  a  report  of  the  Shanghai 

Municipal  Council  for  1899.* 

The  following  is  a  percentage  analysis  of  the  refuse  of  Melbourne, 

Victoria,  as  given  by  Goodrich,  t 

Screenings,  sand,  or  fine  dust 42.81 

Cinders,  coke 26 .  55 

Clinker,  stones,  etc 1 .  32 

Vegetable  matter 13 .  28 

Paper 7.36 

Rags 1.68 

Straw  or  fiber 1 .  63 

Broken  glass  and  bottles  1 .  44 

Crockery 0 .  56 

Bones 1 .03 

Iron 0.33 

Old  tins 1.11 

Wood 0.90 

100.00 

*  "Modern  Destructor  Practice,"  p.  180.        f  "Modern  Destructor  Practice,"  p.  165. 


80       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


I.— SUMMARY 

The  foregoing  data  and  discussions  emphasize  the  marked  varia- 
tion in  the  quantities,  proportions,  and  characteristics  of  refuse  mater- 
ials in  different  cities  and  towns,  and  even  in  different  districts  of  the 
same  city.  Also,  in  each  city,  the  per  capita  production  of  refuse 
varies  from  year  to  year.  The  effects  of  the  weather,  season,  and  cli- 
mate are  always  quite  appreciable. 

These  many  factors  make  it  difficult  to  estimate  with  exactness  the 
quantities  and  characteristics  of  the  refuse  to  be  expected  in  a  city, 
unless  a  careful  study  of  all  the  pertaining  local  conditions  is  pre- 
viously made.  Such  studies,  properly  conducted  in  advance  of  a 
recommendation  for  new  works,  will  result  in  obtaining  a  more  effect- 
ive and  economical  plan  for  refuse  disposal  than  without  them,  and 
one  which  is  better  adapted  to  the  city  in  question. 

Of  great  assistance  in  this  regard  are  the  published  special  reports 
and  the  records  of  city  officials.  To  make  them  more  readily  compar- 
able and  useful  in  different  communities,  they  should  in  the  future 
be  tabulated  on  standard  forms.  A  satisfactory  form,  which  can  be 
recommended  for  use,  has  been  published  by  the  American  Public 
Health  Association,  and  also  adopted  by  the  American  Society  for 
Municipal  Improvements,  and  is  reproduced  on  pages  231-235. 

As  local  usage  has  sometimes  given  to  the  same  material  different 
names  in  different  places,  we  have  felt  obliged,  for  use  in  the  present 
work,  to  select  definite  terms  for  each  of  the  materials  and  to  classify 
them  for  convenient  discussion.  We  have  given  their  quantities,  com- 
position, and  unit  weights,  so  far  as  available  and  necessary  to  represent 
different  parts  of  our  country  and  also  of  some  foreign  countries,  in 
order  to  indicate,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  separate  effects  on  the 
refuse  from  a  variety  of  causes. 

It  is  hoped  that  in  the  future  municipal  refuse  will  be  more  fre- 
quently measured  and  analyzed,  because  a  knowledge  of  its  quantities 
and  compositions  is  essential  to  determine  the  best  means  of  collection 
and  disposal. 


CHAPTER  II 
HOUSE  TREATMENT 

The  problem  of  a  proper  disposal  of  refuse  starts  at  the  point  of  its 
origin.  In  the  case  of  garbage,  this  is  the  house  or  market;  in  the 
case  of  trade  refuse,  it  is  the  manufacturing  establishment  which 
produces  it;  in  the  case  of  manure,  it  is  the  stable  or  the  street  surface. 

The  term  "  house  treatment  "  of  refuse,  as  used  herein,  refers  to 
the  handling  of  the  materials,  originally  in  the  house,  stable,  or  factory, 
previous  to  the  time  when  they  are  taken  up  by  the  collector  to  be 
placed  in  the  collection  wagon. 

The  house  treatment  is  of  greater  importance  in  the  general  prob- 
lem than  is  commonly  considered.  From  the  point  of  view  of  the 
public,  official  house  refuse  originates  after  the  garbage,  ashes,  and 
rubbish  have  been  removed  from  the  kitchen,  furnace,  stove,  or 
waste  basket,  and  placed  in  a  receptacle,  either  in  the  cellar,  or  in 
the  yard  adjacent  to  the  back  door,  or  on  the  sidewalk.  Further, 
there  is  no  part  of  the  refuse  problem  which  affects  the  general  aspect 
of  a  city's  streets,  alleys,  and  yards  more  than  the  house  treatment, 
because  failure  to  keep  the  refuse  in  proper  receptacles  quickly  pro- 
duces on  the  streets  unsightly  and  objectionable  conditions.  The 
chief  requirements  for  efficient  house  treatment  are  simplicity  and 
cleanliness. 

Much  good  can  be  done  by  the  collection  department  in  educating 
the  people  as  to  the  results  of  carelessness.  In  nearly  all  cities,  there- 
fore, some  sort  of  education  is  attempted  along  this  line,  as,  for 
instance,  by  distributing  cards  setting  forth  rules  and  regulations 
affecting  the  size,  make,  and  location  of  cans,  and  how  to  use  them.  In 
many  instances,  such  work  of  the  department  is  defeated  if  careless- 
ness and  slovenliness  are  permitted  in  the  back  yard  and  alley  adjoin- 
ing the  house,  thus  creating  nuisances  that  affect  directly  more  people 
than  any  other  objectionable  conditions,  even  at  isolated  points  of 
disposal.  Careful  attention  to  house  treatment  may  also  reduce 
materially  the  cost  of  the  collection  service. 

The  factors  influencing  these  conditions  are  discussed  as  follows: 

81 


82       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


A.— DEGREE  OF  SEPARATION 

The  first  factor  controlling  the  house  treatment  is  the  method  of 
disposal  which  is  best  suited  to  the  locality.  If  the  garbage  is  to  be 
fed  to  hogs  or  treated  at  a  reduction  plant,  it  is  necessary  that  it  be 
well  separated  from  all  other  kinds  of  refuse.  If  the  ashes  are  to  be 
utilized  to  fill  up  low  land,  it  is  advisable,  though  not  always  necessary, 
to  separate  from  them  all  garbage,  and  sometimes,  also,  the  rubbish. 
Such  requirements  would  demand  a  three-part  separation  at  the 
house;  in  other  words,  the  house  treatment  would  require  three  sepa- 
rate cans  or  receptacles,  or  two  receptacles  if  the  rubbish  is  bundled. 
In  some  cities  the  garbage  and  rubbish  are  combined  and  disposed  of 
by  incineration.  Then,  also,  two  cans  will  suffice — one  for  garbage  and 
rubbish  and  the  other  for  ashes.  In  still  other  cities,  one  can  contains 
only  garbage,  and  the  rubbish  and  ashes  are  mixed.  Where  all 
refuse  is  mixed  to  be  burned  in  incinerators,  only  one  can  or  recep- 
tacle is  required. 

The  latter  is  the  common  practice  in  Europe.  In  the  larger  cities 
of  America,  the  one-can  system  is  the  exception  rather  than  the  rule. 
In  Seattle,  the  Borough  of  Richmond  of  New  York  City,  Savannah, 
Atlanta,  Montgomery,  San  Francisco,  and  in  some  other  places,  mixed 
refuse  is  placed  by  the  householder  in  one  receptacle.  Where  garbage 
is  collected  alone,  sometimes  an  order  is  issued  by  the  collection 
department  requiring  that  it  be  drained  and  wrapped  in  waste  paper 
before  it  is  placed  in  the  can,  as  in  Minneapolis,  and  Trenton.  This 
practice  has  apparently  been  satisfactory.  Dr.  P.  M.  Hall,  Health 
Officer  in  Mirineapolis,  has  stated  its  advantages  as  follows: 

"The  first  step  in  the  disposal  of  garbage  is  carrying  it  from  the  house  and 
placing  it  in  the  can,  and  the  question  naturally  arises,  why  should  not  this 
step  be  a  sanitary  one  and  be  made  in  the  direction  of  educating  the  house- 
holder? Under  existing  conditions  in  almost  every  city,  the  can  is  as  great  a 
nuisance  as  the  garbage  itself,  if  not  greater.  In  the  primitive  days,  the 
Indian,  when  the  offense  froYn  the  waste  products  of  his  housekeeping  became 
too  noisome,  moved  away,  but  in  our  day  and  generation,  we  remove  the 
garbage  and  keep  the  smell.  Take  the  first  step — the  placing  of  the  garbage, 
the  waste  food,  or  droppings  from  our  tables,  in  any  kind  of  receptacle — wood, 
galvanized  iron,  or  what-not,  and  with  the  presence  of  heat,  moisture,  and 
fUes,  you  will  very  soon  have  a  foul,  maggoty,  fly-breeding  mess  of  putre- 
faction. Such  a  mess  is  necessarily  a  nuisance,  requires  frequent  removal, 
and  is  a  nuisance  every  time  it  is  handled,  from  the  can  to  final  disposa'  Is 
it  necessary  that  this  condition  of  things  should  be?  Is  there  no  way  to  elimio 
ate  these  breeders  of  putrefaction,  heat,  moisture,  and  the  fly?  Is  it  not  a 
little  bit  inconsistent  that  we  legislate  and  talk  about  fly-infection,  when  we 
are  perpetuating  the  fly  nuisance  in  the  garbage  can  by  furnishing  a  most  pro- 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  83 

lific  breeding  place?  It  has  been  said  that  the  annoyance  of  the  can  probably 
never  will  be  done  away  with.  It  seems  that  this  condition  of  tlungs  has  been 
accepted  everywhere  and  that  nobody  has  tried.  We  find,  however,  exceptions 
in  two  cities — one  in  the  United  States  and  the  other  in  Canada — where  at  least 
an  effort  has  been  made  to  keep  the  garbage  can  from  being  a  constant  nuisance, 
and  that  is  what  I  have  come  to  tell  you  about — how  these  two  cities  have 
been  trying — and,  I  will  say,  with  a  great  measure  of  success — to  make  the 
garbage  can  no  longer  a  nuisance. 

"  '  Drain  garbage  of  all  moisture,  then  wrap  it  in  paper  before  putting  it  in 
the  can,  and  it  will  neither  smell  bad  in  hot  weather,  nor  freeze  and  stick  to 
the  can  in  cold  weather.     Do  this  and  have  a  clean  can  at  all  times.' 

"Heat,  moisture,  and  the  fly  are  all  eliminated.  This  rule  was  put  into 
practice  in  Minneapolis  in  February,  1907,  and  is  still  in  force.  The  cam- 
paign of  education  was  a  hard  one,  but  we  have  won." 

When  garbage  is  fed  to  hogs,  and  even  when  it  is  taken  to  reduction 
works,  some  collectors  have  refused  to  take  away  the  paper,  and  have 
returned  it  to  the  can.  A  local  decision,  regulating  this  matter,  should 
be  made  for  each  municipality. 

It  is  important,  in  the  case  of  infectious  diseases,  to  keep  out  of 
the  general  collection  all  refuse  from  sick  rooms.  This  material 
should  be  disposed  of  separately  and  in  a  proper  way,  according  to 
regulations. 

At  West  New  Brighton  and  at  Montreal  where  mixed  refuse  is 
collected  and  burned,  it  has  been  found  expedient  to  keep  out  some 
of  the  ashes,  in  order  to  reduce  the  bulk  of  the  material  to  be  burned. 

The  most  common  house  treatment  in  American  cities  is  the  two- 
can  system,  in  which  the  garbage  is  kept  in  one  receptacle  and  the 
ashes  and  rubbish  in  another.  This  is  the  case  in  the  larger  cities 
of  the  northeastern  part  of  the  United  States,  where  feeding  and 
reduction  methods  are  in  most  common  use. 

In  Europe  the  one-can  system  is  the  most  common.  In  Paris 
galvanized-iron  pails  containing  the  refuse  stand  ordinarily  in  the 
yard.  The  pails  are  furnished  by  the  householder.  In  the  morning, 
about  5  o'clock  in  summer  or  6  o'clock  in  winter,  the  janitor  places 
them  on  the  sidewalk  in  front  of  the  premises.  Before  8  o'clock  they 
are  collected  by  the  city.  In  Zurich  and  in  some  cities  in  Germany 
the  same  custom  prevails,  but  the  pails  are  generally  furnished  by  the 
municipality. 

The  degree  of  separation  should  be  determined  specially  in  each 
city,  to  suit  the  most  economical  method,  both  of  collection  and  final 
disposal,  and  also  to  suit  the  convenience  of  the  householders. 


84       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


B.— RECEPTACLES 

1.  Type. — Not  many  years  ago,  in  American  cities,  large  wooden 
bins,  infrequently  emptied,  were  used  for  the  reception  and  storage  of 
all  kinds  of  refuse.  They  were  generally  placed  in  the  alley,  and  were 
often  overfilled,  allowing  the  contents  to  spill  and  form  unsightly 
refuse  heaps.  Later,  wooden  pails  or  boxes  were  used  for  the  gar- 
bage; these  were  removed  more  frequently,  but  the  ashes  and  rubbish 
were  put  into  the  wooden  bins  or  scattered  in  loose  piles  in  the  alley. 
Sometimes  concrete  refuse  boxes  are  advantageously  used,  as,  for 
instance,  in  St.  Louis. 

The  next  improvement  was  the  introduction  of  the  metallic  can 
with  cover.  Various  sizes  and  shapes  of  such  cans  for  garbage,  ashes, 
and  rubbish  have  been  devised.  Some  have  close-fitting  covers  which 
are  opened  by  a  lever,  operated  by  pressure  with  the  foot,  and  close 
automatically.  Others  are  cylindrical,  or  are  larger  at  the  top  than  at 
the  bottom,  and  are  fitted  with  covers. 

In  cold  climates  metal  receptacles  are  not  advantageous  in  winter, 
and  wooden  pails  are  preferable.  The  reverse  is  the  case  in  hot 
climates. 

It  is  essential  to  have  a  tight- fitting  cover,  in  order  to  keep  small 
animals  away  from  the  garbage,  to  keep  dust  from  blowing  away 
from  ashes,  and  to  keep  rain  out  of  the  refuse.  A  tight  cover  will 
also  prevent  room  sweepings  from  being  blown  about.  As  the  latter 
may  contain  disease  germs,  it  would  be  dangerous  to  have  them  scat- 
tered around.  Most  kinds  of  refuse  attract  flies,  and  afford  oppor- 
tunities for  them  to  breed.  Uncovered  garbage  cans  attract  rats, 
cats,  and  dogs,  thus  increasing  the  chance  of  such  cans  being  tipped 
over  and  their  contents  spilled. 

The  best  size  for  the  can  is  partly  determined  by  the  number  of 
men  attending  each  collection  wagon.  Ordinarily,  the  can  should 
not  be  larger  than  one  man  can  easily  lift  and  empty  into  the  wagon. 
The  usual  capacities  range  from  f  to  4  cu.  ft.,  a  reasonable  size  for  a 
garbage,  rubbish,  or  ash  can.  If  it  holds  only  garbage  from  one 
family,  with  frequent  collection,  f  cu.  ft.  is  sufficient.  Garbage  cans 
with  a  wider  top  are  particularly  suitable  in  cold  climates,  because 
they  will  not  so  easily  become  clogged  by  ice.  The  top,  however, 
should  be  onlj^  slightly  larger  than  the  bottom,  in  order  that  they  may 
not  be  top-heavy  and  tip  over.  Cans  for  rubbish  alone  may  be  4 
cu.  ft.  in  capacity. 

Two  styles  of  cans  are  here  shown:  One  can  (Figs.  10  and  11)  is 
partly  underground  (Rochester  Can  Co.).  An  outer  shell  of  heavy 
galvanized  iron  is  placed  permanently  underground.     Inside  is  thf 


HOUSE  TREATMENT 


85 


garbage  container, 
having  a  capacity  of 
from  10  to  15  gal. 
The  whole  is  closed 
with  a  heavy  tight- 
fitting,  hinged  cover, 
and  this  is  lifted  by 
the  collector.  To  de- 
posit the  garbage,  a 
hinged  lid  in  the  cover 
is  lifted  by  pressing 
the  foot  on  the  trip. 

The  other  can 
(Fig.  12)  stands  on  the 
surface  of  the  ground. 
The  handle,  when 
pressed  down,  locks 
the  lid  securely  (the 
Schaffer  can). 

For  the  reception 


Fig.  10. — Underground  Garbage  Can. 


of  ashes  it  is  well  to  have  a  can   made  of   extra   heavy  galvanized 
sheet-iron  well  reinforced  with  iron  bands  at   top  and  bottom,  and 

heavy  steel  slats  riv- 
eted to  the  body  and 
through  the  top  and 
bottom  bands.  Fig. 
13  shows  such  a  can, 
made  by  the  Roches- 
ter Can  Company. 

For  rubbish,  a  me- 
tallic can  is  not  ne- 
cessary; therefore,  in 
Cleveland,  and  in 
other  cities,  canvas  or 
burlap  bags  are  used. 
In  some  cities,  rubbish 
is  tied  in  bundles  ready 
for  the  collector. 

All    refuse    recep- 
tacles have   to   stand 
hard      service,      and 
Fig.  11.— Removing  the  Container  of  the  Under-  should  be  strong,  with 
ground  Garbage  Can.  corrugated     or     rein- 


r 

Jipv 

.^_J^T 

i 

H 

HI 

^P^gM^S 

^^^1 

kt^^ 

H 

iri^^S 

f^^k 

V"~>-- 

2 

llBlr^Wr^^^BBrTr    '' 

wi 

1 

iw^ 

^^  /      "^m 

^ 

1 

PR™ 

^^ 

W' 

•is-*' 

fe      '   ' 

1 

86        COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


forced  sides.  The  size  depends  on  the 
quantity  of  material  to  be  handled  and 
the  interval  between  collections,  but 
the  filled  receptacle  should  always  be 
small  enough  to  be  handled  easily. 
For  ashes,  when  they  are  collected  in- 
frequently, a  large  receptacle  must  be 
used,  but  it  may  then  be  taken  to  the 
wagon  on  a  small  roller  truck  which  the 
collector  carries  with  him. 

2.  Location. — The  location  of  the 
house  refuse  receptacle  materially  in- 
fluences the  cost  of  the  collection  ser- 
vice. Where  there  are  alleys,  it  is  a 
common  practice  to  place  the  can  near 
the  back  door  of  the  house.  Where  there  are  no  alleys,  as  in  most 
parts  of  New  York  City  and  in  most  European  cities,  the  house- 
holder is  required  to  place  the  can  in  the  street  at  the  curb  or  house 
line,     In  many  European  cities,  the  householder  places  the  can  at 


Fig. 


12. — Garbage  Can,   with 
Locking  Cover. 


Fig.  13. — Can  for  Ashes  and  Rubbish. 


his  front  doorstep  late  in  the  evening,  and  it  is  emptied  during  the 
night  or  early  in  the  morning.  We  have  found,  in  America,  that 
where  this  method  is  followed,  the  cans  are  sometimes  damaged, 
tipped  over,  or  stolen. 

One  of  the  difficult  features  of  garbage  collection  in  America  is  to 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  87 

fix  a  place  where  the  can  may  be  found  readily  by  the  collector.  Fre- 
quently they  are  kept  in  odd,  out-of-the-way  corners,  ho  that,  espe- 
cially when  the  collector  is  working  at  night  or  is  a  new  man,  he  cannot 
find  them  readily.  The  back  yard  near  the  kitchen  door  is  the 
preferable  location  for  the  can,  under  our  average  conditions.  The 
alley  is  not  the  best  place  for  it,  because  it  is  too  easy  of  access  by 
dogs  and  unlicensed  ragpickers,  and  can  be  easily  upset  or  damaged 
by  passing  vehicles.  The  cellar  is  also  an  improper  place  for  the  can, 
because  of  the  necessity  and  inconvenience  of  having  the  collector 
enter  the  house. 

The  studies  relative  to  the  collection  service  in  Milwaukee,  made  in 
1911,  indicated  that  from  six  to  twelve  stops  can  be  made  by  each 
wagon  in  one  hour.  This  service  was  for  garbage  when  disposed  of 
separately,  the  cans  being  placed  in  general  near  the  back  door.  In 
London,*  one  collector,  under  normal  conditions,  is  said  to  make 
twenty-four  or  twenty-five  stops  per  hour.  In  districts  where  the 
cans  are  placed  at  the  curb,  it  is  quite  possible  to  make  as  many  as 
fifty  collections  in  one  hour.  Lately,  bids  for  the  collection  of  refuse 
were  received  in  Plainfield,  N.  J.,  under  two  schedules:  (a)  that  the 
householder  should  set  the  can  out  at  the  curb,  and  {h)  that  the  col- 
lector should  carry  the  can  out  from  the  basement.  The  lowest  bid 
under  schedule  (6)  was  $12.00  per  house  per  year,  and  under  schedule 
(a)  it  was  only  $4.62.  For  a  city  of  100,000  people,  having,  say,  20,000 
houses,  this  difference  would  amount  to  $147,600  per  year.  There- 
fore, it  may  be  cheaper,  from  the  collection  point  of  view,  for  the 
householder  to  place  the  can  at  the  curb.  Nevertheless,  the  citizens 
sometimes  prefer  to  pay  a  higher  rate,  in  order  to  avoid  the  burden 
of  setting  the  can  on  the  sidewalk,  and  the  undesirability  of  having  the 
refuse  exposed  in  front  of  the  house. 

Various  other  suggestions  have  been  made  to  provide  suitable 
locations  for  the  can.  At  some  army  posts,  where  both  the  front  and 
back  of  the  quarters  are  easily  accessible,  it  has  been  the  practice 
to  build  small  lattice  fences,  enclosing  a  platform  on  which  the  cans 
are  placed.  In  some  cities,  where  the  alleys  are  sufficiently  well 
paved,  the  cans  are  placed  in  boxes  which  are  set  into  the  fence,  and 
open  both  inward  and  outward. 

The  location  of  the  can  should  be  as  uniform  as  possible  through- 
out a  city,  and  so  that  the  collectors  can  work  most  expeditiously. 
To  promote  the  most  efficient  correlation  between  the  house  treatment 
and  the  collection  service,  it  may  frequently  be  worth  while  to  employ 
an  inspector  to  instruct  housekeepers. 

A  device  for  keeping  garbage  cans  in  place  has  been  designed  by 

*  "Cleansing  of  Cities  and  Towns,"  by  Arthur  May. 


88       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Dr.  M.  E.  Connor,  General  Inspector,  Department  of  Sanitation, 
I.  C.  C,  Ancon,  Canal  Zone.  The  object  of  this  so-called  "  garbage- 
can  stand  "  is  to  make  the  cans  fly-  and  rat-proof  and  to  furnish  a 
self-closing  cover. 

3.  Cleaning. — The  most  economical  way  for  a  city  to  keep  house 
cans  in  good  condition  would  be  to  compel  the  house  occupants  to 
clean  them.  However,  such  cleaning  is  neglected  so  frequently  that 
collection  departments  have  found  it  impossible  to  rely  on  it.  Keep- 
ing the  can  clean  is  important,  for  several  reasons:  A  dirty  can  is 
unsightly  and  odorous;  it  contains,  in  the  dirt  left  in  the  corners, 
organisms  which  may  cause  putrefaction;  and,  when  fresh  refuse 
is  placed  in  an  unclean  can,  it  may  become  quickly  seeded  with  these 
organisms,  with  hastened  decomposition  in  hot  weather. 

Of  the  various  methods  to  insure  clean  cans,  the  one  practiced  in 
some  cities  of  America  and  Europe  is  quite  satisfactory.  When  the 
full  can  is  placed  on  the  collecting  wagon,  a  clean  one  is  left  in  its  place 
by  the  collector.  The  cans,  after  being  emptied  at  the  disposal  plant 
are  at  once  thoroughly  disinfected  or  cleaned  by  washing  with  a  hose 
and  then  replaced  on  the  wagons. 

This  system  has  many  advantages,  the  most  important  being  that 
the  department  has  full  control  as  to  the  type  of  can  and  its  condition. 
The  householder  is  as  responsible  for  the  safety  of  the  can  on  his 
premises  as  he  would  be  if  he  owned  it.  At  Kiel,  Germany,  it  required 
eight  persons  on  the  day  shift  to  clean  the  cans  coming  from  a  popu- 
lation of  about  170,000. 

In  Buffalo,  when  the  collection  of  refuse  was  done  by  contract, 
the  contractor  was  required  to  sprinkle  a  disinfectant  over  the  inside 
of  each  can  at  the  house  after  he  had  emptied  it.  The  collector 
carried  with  him,  for  this  purpose,  a  box  of  disinfecting  powder. 
This  method  may  be  subject  to  careless  treatment,  and,  without  con- 
scientious collectors  and  rigid  inspection,  may  prove  ineffective.  At 
some  plants  the  cans  are  cleaned  with  boiling  water. 

In  Lansing,  the  collector  takes  the  full  can  and  leaves  an  empty 
one.  Householders  are  not  obliged  to  wash  the  cans,  but  it  costs  the 
city  $1500  a  year  to  wash  and  disinfect  them.  Objectionable  sub- 
stances, such  as  glass,  rubbish,  and  sweepings,  are  often  put  in  the 
garbage  cans  and  are  not  detected  until  emptied.  The  extra  handling 
of  the  cans  in  the  wagons  has  caused  greater  depreciation,  and 
therefore  dumping  into  collection  wagons  may  be  preferred. 

4.  Ownership. ^ — The  collection  department  should  designate  the 
proper  ownership  of  the  can,  so  that  responsibility  for  compliance  with 
the  rules  can  be  fixed.  In  most  cities,  those  persons  who  produce 
the  refuse  are  supposed  to  provide  the  receptacles.     This  is  generally 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  89 

satisfactory  when  the  owner  lives  on  the  premises.  Tenants  providing 
proper  garbage  cans,  sometimes  finding  it  difficult  to  prevent  them 
from  becoming  lost  or  stolen,  have  refused  to  provide  new  cans, 
claiming  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  proprietor  or  city  to  supply  them. 

C— FLIES 

In  the  summer  a  most  important  feature  of  the  house  treatment 
relates  to  fly  breeding.  Although  probably  more  than  80%  of  all 
house  flies  breed  in  stable  refuse,  as  discussed  in  Chapter  XIV,  the 
number  breeding  in  garbage  is  considerable.  The  garbage  delivered 
to  the  incinerator  at  Milwaukee  was  found  to  be  swarming  with  fly 
maggots. 

The  extent  to  which  flies  actually  develop  from  the  maggots  in  the 
garbage  depends  on  the  following  facts:  It  requires  about  two  weeks 
for  the  fly  to  develop  after  the  egg  is  laid.  Therefore,  if  all  the  gar- 
bage is  destroyed  within  two  weeks  after  it  has  originated,  the  con- 
tained maggots  will  be  destroyed  with  it.  In  uncovered  cans,  some  of 
the  maggots  are  known  to  crawl  from  them  into  the  ground  and  bury 
themselves  during  the  period  of  pupation. 

Observations  in  European  cities  point  to  the  fact  that,  for  the  same 
number  of  persons,  mixed  refuse  harbors  fewer  maggots  than  garbage 
alone.  If  the  ashes  and  rubbish  form  a  sufficiently  large  part  of  the 
whole,  so  as  to  produce  a  dry  and  dusty  refuse,  the  material  will  not 
be  suitable  for  fly  breeding.  The  Minneapolis  method  of  wrapping 
garbage  in  paper  when  separately  collected  is  also  effective  in  pre- 
venting the  multiplication  of  flies.  The  best  preventive,  however, 
is  cleanliness  and  a  sufficiently  frequent  collection,  to  prevent  the 
development  of  the  fly  from  the  egg. 

To  catch  the  living  fly  in  or  about  a  house,  the  best  means  are 
commercial  Tanglefoot  white  fly  paper  inside  the  house,  and  light- 
colored  baited  conical  traps  of  fine  wire  netting  outside  of  the  house, 
set  in  a  well-lighted  place  and  out  of  the  wind.  The  bait  should  be 
contained  in  a  shallow,  circular  pan.  For  fly  paper  the  best  bait  is 
2  parts  of  rosin  to  1  part  of  castor  oil;  for  the  traps,  it  is  either  milk 
with  overripe  bananas  or  1  part  of  molasses  with  3  parts  of  water, 
slightly  fermented.  The  flies  are  best  killed  by  immersing  the 
trap  in  hot  water. 

D.— SPECIAL  TREATMENTS 

Certain  special  treatments  of  the  refuse  in  the  house,  before  it  is 
placed  in  the  can,  are  also  sometimes  of  value. 

1.  Screening. — Rotating  and  fixed  screens,  to  be  attached  to  ash 


90       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

cans,  can  be  purchased,  and  are  useful  in  sifting  out  some  of  the 
unburned  coal  from  the  ashes.  This  unburned  but  scorched  coal, 
called  "  cinder  "  in  England,  amounts  to  from  15  to  30%  of  the 
ashes  coming  from  the  average  house  furnace  or  stove.  Although  it 
is  not  as  combustible  as  new  coal,  it  has  still  a  good  calorific  value, 
and  is  particularly  useful  for  banking  fires  at  night. 

2.  Burning  at  House. — The  burning  of  combustible  refuse  at  the 
house  would  be  the  cheapest  method  of  disposing  of  it,  and  would 
relieve  the  community  of  the  cost  of  collection,  transportation,  and 
disposal.  Mr.  Arthur  May,  Superintendent  of  the  Cleansing  Depart- 
ment, Borough  of  Finsbury,  London,  considers  this  procedure  as 
part  of  a  householder's  responsibility  to  the  community,  and  recom- 
mends that  a  by-law  be  enacted  to  compel  the  burning  of  combustible 
refuse.  However,  if  done  at  many  houses  in  a  crowded  district,  a  few 
careless  persons  might  cause  a  great  nuisance,  especially  if  the  refuse 
contained  some  garbage.  In  general,  the  practice,  therefore,  has 
not  been  favored. 

Dr.S.H.Durgin,  former  Health  Officer  of  Boston,  has  recommended 
a  simple  means  of  carbonizing  the  garbage  in  the  flue  leading  from 
the  kitchen  stove.  The  garbage  is  slowly  dried,  then  charred,  and 
finally  can  be  used  as  fuel,  all  without  the  discharge  of  any  odors. 
Although  this  contrivance  is  quite  satisfactory  under  favorable  con- 
ditions, it  has  not  been  generally  used  because  of  the  necessity  of 
giving  it  careful  attention  and  regular  charges  and  removals,  depend- 
ing on  the  humidity  of  the  garbage  and  the  heat  in  the  flue. 

Gas  ovens  for  burning  garbage  alone  are  designed  like  a  small  stove, 
to  stand  in  the  kitchen  and  be  connected  with  the  chimney.  The 
garbage  is  consumed  by  gas  flames  coming  from  below.  A  small 
family  might  find  such  a  disposal  too  expensive  to  operate,  and  it  also 
requires  careful  attention.  The  operation,  including  fixed  charges, 
may  require  from  1000  to  2000  cu.  ft.  of  gas  per  month.  Therefore, 
only  a  comparatively  small  part  of  the  population  could  afford  this 
expense.     Several  of  such  garbage  burners  are  in  the  market. 

A  very  common  method  of  rubbish  disposal  for  isolated  houses 
and  small  towns  and  villages  is  to  burn  it  in  basket  cages  in  the  back 
yards,  or,  in  case  of  schools  or  institutions,  in  a  small  masonry  oven; 
but  care  must  be  taken  in  starting  and  continuing  the  fires,  in  order 
to  prevent  offensive  odors.     (See  Chapter  X.) 

3.  Wrapping. — Wrapping  the  garbage  before  placing  it  in  the  can, 
as  already  described,  has  advantages,  particularly  in  small  residential 
communities,  and  when  the  garbage  is  to  be  incinerated.  (See  also 
Chapter  XVII.)  When,  however,  the  garbage  is  to  be  fed  to  hogs, 
end  requires  the  prior  removal  of  the  paper  and  its  separate  destruc- 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  91 

tion  by  fire,  the  wrapping  method  has  been  strongly  objected  to  at  the 
hog  farms.  The  wrapping  has  also  been  strenuously  objected  to  if 
garbage  is  taken  to  reduction  works,  as  the  paper  absorbs  and  removes 
too  much  grease,  and  the  labor  of  unwrapping  is  expensive. 

4.  Closed  System. — In  some  European  cities  and  in  certain  dis- 
tricts in  New  York  City,  there  has  been  used  what  is  termed  the 
"  closed  system."  The  house  cans  are  equipped  with  special  sliding 
covers,  which  fit  into  guides  over  openings  in  the  top  of  the  collection 
wagons.  Thus  the  contents  of  the  cans  can  be  discharged  into  the 
wagon  without  exposure  to  the  air. 

5.  Temporary  Cold  Storage. — In  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  Sta- 
tions in  New  York  and  Washington,  there  are  cold-storage  rooms  for 
the  garbage  from  the  respective  restaurants,  for  its  sanitary  preserva- 
tion until  it  can  be  removed. 

E.— IMPROPER  CONDITIONS,  AND  COMPLAINTS 

Very  little  definite  information  is  available  regarding  this  subject. 
During  an  investigation  of  refuse  disposal  in  Louisville  (1917)  by 
Greeley,  special  studies  of  house  treatment  were  made,  and  actual 
conditions  were  observed  in  a  number  of  districts  of  different  charac- 
teristics. The  results  are  summarized  in  Table  49.  The  lack  of 
proper  house  treatment  and  the  causes  of  complaints  are  shown. 
Only  17%  of  the  houses  used  garbage  cans.  In  all  other  cases  the 
garbage  was  found  by  the  collector  in  barrels,  boxes,  dish  pans,  and 
miscellaneous  receptacles. 

At  Washington,  D.  C,  there  is  kept  a  record  of  complaints,  sub- 
divided according  to  the  class  of  refuse  material.  The  results  of 
two  years  are  shown  in  Table  50. 

In  Toledo,  Ohio  (population  243,109),  during  the  first  five  months 
of  1920,  the  number  of  complaints  received  from  the  collection  service 
in  reference  to  garbage  averaged  12.8  per  day,  and  these  were  quite 
well  distributed  about  the  city.  This  was  equivalent  to  5.26  com- 
plaints per  100,000  population  per  day,  as  compared  with  Washing- 
ton and  Milwaukee,  where  they  were  1.10  and  1.53,  respectively. 

F.— ESSENTIALS  OF  TREATMENT 

A  thorough  attention  to  the  essentials  of  the  house  treatment  is 
necessary  for  the  general  success  of  the  work  of  the  collection  depart- 
ment. 

1.  Garbage,  Ashes,  and  Rubbish. — The  simplest  treatment  wUl 
generally  be  preferable.  From  experience  in  many  cities,  it  is  prac- 
ticable to  maintain  a  two-  or  three-can  system,  but  this  is  not  done 


92       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


^.   :? 


tc 

02 

« 

^ 

CJ 

"« 

g 

fl 

J 

s 

"■43 

'-!3 

&^    ' 

g- 

bC 

o 

CJ 

o 

Ci 

03 

4)    „      - 

OJ 

?^ 

CD 

C 

c^  :   : 

IH 

(h 

U 

o 

'o 

J^ 

>— ] 

u 

o 

« 

c3  ^      - 

03 

lU 

«4- 

VM 

tt-H      ■*          '^ 

(^— 1 

PM 

o 

o 

O 

O 

fe§J^fe5 

fe§ 

^^^5        1        ^1 

CO    CO    ^ 

o 

J>    IC   00 

O 

■*    CO    (M 

o 

I-H    (N    lO 

o 

13 

CO 

CO  t^ 

lO   .-H       • 

CO   ^    (N 

a) 

-o 

1—1 

(M    <M 

(M 

(N    CO 

_o 

T-H 

o 

ec 

l^    CD 

O    00       ■ 

1-H    CO    »0 

e 

00 

<M    CO 

(M 

CD 

J, 

CO 

CO   lO 

O   CO   00 

CO   i-f    C 

3) 
o 

pO 

CD 

TtH     lO 

(M    (M 

»c 

e 

05 

o  t>. 

Tt<    kO    ^ 

IC   (M    cc 

00 

CD    lO 

CO    (N 

1—1    IC 

S 

f^ 

S^ 

cr 

00   CO 

TlH    CO    00 

00   CO    Ti- 

«     (P 

(M 

-H     (N 

1— 1 

1—1   t— 1 

Q 

o  s 

1  '^ 

riS 

t- 

V, 

lO     --H 

CO   TtH    CO 

r^  05  cc 

la 

-«  -s 

(M 

i-H     (M 

I-H 

1—1 

o 

M  S 

a 

W« 

e 

05 

cc 

CO    CO 

(M    tH   1> 

o  o  cc 

<N 

rH     <N 

1— 1 

(N    (M 

a 

i 

K 

^■« 

o 

. 

O 

^     O 

t^ 

<M 

l>   00 

(N   CO   CO                I 

M    O 

4J 

CO 

1>  t>. 

•s  -^ 

m 

y-K 

■z 

-5 

. 

»o 

lO    i-H 

g;2:  ^  ^ 

(M    CD   Ti- 

•a 

l> 

(N    '^ 

CO 

Cv 

Id    05 

1>    CO        • 

TjH    l-H    Tt 

3 

^ 

CO 

rH    1— 1 

•a 

"V 

^ 

lO 

Oi  CO 

(M   CO   T-l 

(N    Tin   c<: 

1 

(N 

1-H 

(B 

e 

CD 

CD   (N 

CO  t^   CO 

lO   t^   1- 

T-H 

r-l     1—1 

(M 

"s 

CD 

,-H     Tt< 

^  CO   <M    CO 

05    O    Ti- 

n 

CO 

C<1    00 

^ 

TfH    1- 

-t.^ 

3 

o 

CO 

CI 

_o 
o 

-tJ 

i 

bC 
'■+3 

'i 

3 
o 

-t^       _       <D 

p 

a; 

^ 

m 

1 

o 
A 

CM 

o 

cc 

CD 

3 

er  of  houses  se 
iptacles  at  curb 
number  of  colL 

8  % 

a 
a. 

i 

1 X 

0 

C 
4. 

c 

s 

o 

requency 
Once  pe 
Twice  p^ 
Three  ti 

'sis  8 

"3 
o 

CJ 
o3 

umb 
rece 
otal 

ype< 

Gar 
Bar 
Mis 

H  > 

^     H  e 

H 

^      .5  l3   5 


_     C3 

=3   "H 


"    d     S 

•cap 


.2  Si  ^ 
2    fc.    o' 

■s  « i 

o  -S  "*^ 
(-.   +^    ^ 

>>    >  5 
oj    B 

SQQ 

m    §.2 
.2    o    « 

J^    1 

o         a) 

O      It     O) 

><    o  J3 
CB  (^  H 


HOUSE  TREATMENT 


93 


u 


o 


o 
O 

o 
;?: 

I-H 

O 
PS 

<1 
o 


o 

o 


,„ 

1        ^ 

c.  ^\  c 

^_ 

0;     ^ 

r-1     CO     '^ 

c 

o 

'^ 

t^ 

C-- 

d 

.-H     -f     t 

i^  -i  c^j 

05    O 

C-- 

iO    lO 

o 

y 

M    -*    b- 

'I'  c^ 

i^ 

CO 

1-i 

f— t 

p 

» 

0) 

rt 

1    M 

•M    ^    t^ 

o 

^  t; 

■M    ^    CC 

o      • 

ira 

u 

o» 

t-f 

d 

t^  o  iC 

c^  o 

CC 

CO  '^t*  cc 

O     .-H 

t^ 

e«3  o  lO 

»0   CO 

X 

1— ( 

^^ 

1      M 

lO    O    -sC 

o      • 

«'  t; 

1-H     c^    IC 

o 

1—1 

o 

en 

6 

2; 

O    iC    Tf 

o  CO 

t^ 

CO  lO   cc 

CO    t^ 

■* 

T-i    (N    ■* 

00   C-l 

n 
H 

--I 

33 

01 

< 

Per- 
centage 

ic  c^  ec 

r-H     T}<     Tf 

8    : 

lO 

o 

• 

CO  CO  «: 

(N    U5 

b- 

Z 

t^  o  t^ 

Ol 

^  ^  't 

,-1  ■* 

lo 

'"' 

'"' 

4) 

i      ^ 

^    05    C 

o 

-="  -s 

T-H      IM      (£ 

o 

Ph    ^ 

1-H 

© 

^ 

»— ' 

0> 

a  c^  ^ 

t^     l-H 

CO 

H 

o 

rfi    CO   l> 

lO   --I 

o 

O 

^    (M 

TJ<    rH 

iC 

<! 

n 

m 

< 

© 

a 

05   00   cc 

o 

CO   IC 

o 

p-(   c= 

"O 

n 

o 

05 

d 

i-H    ■<*    r- 

CO  >o 

^ 

ic  ^  cr 

lO   o 

iM 

■M    C<1 

lO     l-H 

t>. 

•    u 

si 
1l 

03         ! 

'3 
"ft 
S 

.S    m 

!/■ 

U      <0 

«     2 

o    2 

a  g. 

8  2 

15 
o 

-4J 

o 

-o 

"o  "o  ^ 

"3  'S 

c 

-►i    -u 

cj 

-kJ   -kJ  X 

o   o 

>; 

3  3? 

H  H 

o 

o3     o3     ^ 

fe  E=^  C 

94       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

without  effort.  Some  persons  do  not  seem  to  understand  exactly 
why  or  how  the  separation  should  be  made.  In  Chicago,  Boston,  and 
elsewhere,  under  the  two-  and  three-can  systems,  much  garbage  finds 
its  way  to  the  dumps  by  way  of  the  ash  cans,  and  some  rubbish  to  the 
reduction  plants  in  the  garbage  cans.  From  the  point  of  view  of 
simplicity  and  ease  of  general  adoption,  the  one-can  system,  as  gen- 
erally practiced  in  Europe,  offers  most  advantages  to  the  residents, 
but — in  our  country — not  always  to  the  city  treasury. 

Of  the  available  systems  of  house  treatment,  the  one  which  per- 
mits of  the  greatest  cleanliness  should  be  preferred.  Garbage  gener- 
ally causes  the  most  nuisance,  because  of  the  odor  of  its  putrefaction 
and  from  the  liquids  draining  from  it,  which  foul  anything  with  which 
they  come  in  contact.  Both  these  objections  are  reduced  if  the  gar- 
bage is  intermixed  with  ashes  and  rubbish.  Garbage,  stored  sufficiently 
long  by  itself,  always  creates  a  nuisance. 

In  Milwaukee,  in  order  to  keep  the  foul-smelling  garbage  wagons 
off  the  streets  during  the  day,  the  collection  department  has  been 
forced  by  public  opinion  to  collect  garbage  at  night.  Much  of  the 
public  complaint  against  selecting  certain  locations  for  disposal  works 
is  due  to  the  necessary  concentration  of  odorous  collection  wagons 
along  the  routes. 

Where  garbage  has  become  too  old  for  feeding  to  hogs,  and  if  the 
loosely  fitting  covers  of  the  cans  do  not  prevent  odors,  it  is  suggested 
that  chloride  of  lime,  a  dilute  solution  of  cresol,  a  solution  with  a  pine 
oil  base,  gas  house  waste,  or  sawdust;  if  available,  might  be  used. 
When  garbage  is  not  yet  too  old  for  feeding,  but  should  be  disinfected, 
then  powdered  charcoal  is  the  most  serviceable  material.  Garbage 
pails  should  be  washed  with  water  after  being  emptied,  particularly 
if  the  garbage  is  fed.  When  not  fed,  disinfection  can  be  effected  as 
above,  to  serve  as  a  fly  repellent. 

The  greatest  nuisance  from  ashes  is  the  dust  which  the  wind  blows 
from  them.  Wet  or  moist  garbage  mixed  with  them  lessens  the 
volume  of  dust.  The  greatest  nuisance  from  rubbish  comes  from 
the  loose  paper  which  is  blown  away  from  the  can,  wagon,  or  dump. 
This  is  less  likely  to  happen  if  the  rubbish  is  weighted  down  with 
garbage  and  ashes. 

Mixed  refuse  is  less  objectionable  to  handle  than  garbage  alone, 
and,  in  this  respect,  does  not  differ  materially  from  either  ashes  or 
rubbish.  Therefore,  a  better  class  of  labor  can  generally  be  secured 
to  collect  mixed  refuse. 

With  regard  to  cleanliness,  the  European  one-can  system,  there- 
fore, has  many  advantages. 

From    the  viewpoint    of  total    cost,  including    the    cost    of    final 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  95 

disposal,  the  separation  of  garbage  from  ashes  and  rubbish  may  be 
advantageous,  particularly  in  America,  where  the  richer  garbage  can 
be  used  profitably  as  hog  food,  and  where  its  percentage  of  grease  is 
high.  This  is  also  true  when  ashes  and  rubbish,  if  kept  separated 
from  garbage,  do  not  require  to  be  collected  as  frequently  as  do  either 
garbage  alone  or  the  mixed  refuse.  In  many  communities  or  districts 
both  ashes  and  rubbish  can  be  disposed  of  by  themselves,  in  part  or 
together,  at  the  premises,  or  by  short  hauls  to  near-by  dumps.  This 
condition  may  relieve  the  collection  department  of  much  work,  and 
it  will  reduce  the  cost. 

The  value  of  the  different  methods  of  house  treatment,  therefore, 
must  be  considered  in  conjunction  with  the  costs  of  collection  and 
disposal,  and  will  be  taken  up  again  later  with  these  subjects.  The 
cost  data  bearing  on  house  treatment  alone  are  quite  inadequate,  and 
difficult  to  formulate.     None  is  here  given. 

2.  Trade  Refuse,  Manure,  Sweepings,  Night-soil,  and  Dead 
Animals. — Owing  to  the  great  variation  in  the  character  and  quantity 
of  these  materials,  no  general  suggestions  can  be  given  as  to  the 
treatment  at  their  origin,  as  this  will  depend  entirely  on  the  local 
conditions  in  each  case.  A  few  detailed  remarks,  however,  may 
be  of  service. 

(a)  Trade  Refuse. — Trade  refuse  should  receive  such  treatment 
and  storage  at  the  factory  as  will  prevent  any  and  all  nuisances  arising 
therefrom  on  the  premises.  Therefore,  it  will  depend  entirely  on  the 
specific  character  of  the  materials.  If  they  are  small  in  quantity  and 
have  the  character  of  general  rubbish,  they  may  be  classed  as  rubbish 
and  collected  by  the  city  in  the  same  receptacle  as  the  domestic 
rubbish,  and  in  the  same  manner.  In  that  case  the  refuse  should  be 
placed  in  similar  cans,  at  suitable  points,  and  for  collection  at  such 
hours  as  are  fixed  by  the  city.  If  the  quantities  are  large,  the  pro- 
ducer should  remove  them  at  his  own  expense,  as  a  part  of  his  busi- 
ness affairs  and  subject  to  the  special  city  regulations  covering  the 
requirements  of  sanitation  and  the  comfort  of  the  citizens. 

(6)  Stable  Manure. — As  regards  the  house  or  stable  treatment,  it 
should  be  emphasized  here  that  all  stable  manure  should  be  prevented 
from  becoming  objectionably  odorous,  by  providing  tight-fitting 
covers  for  the  pit  and  by  a  sufficiently  frequent  removal,  but  chiefly 
from  becoming  a  fly-breeding  center.  This  subject  is  discussed  at 
length  in  Chapter  XIV. 

(c)  Sweepings. — House  sweepings  consist  chiefly  of  dust,  and,  where 
a  separate  collection  is  maintained,  are  usually  placed  in  the  rubbish 
or  ash  can.  It  is  very  desirable,  however,  in  case  of  infectious  dis- 
eases occurring  in  a  house,  that  all  sweepings,  as  well  as  other  rubbish 


96       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

from  sick  rooms,  be  kept  out  of  the  rubbish  and  burnt  if  possible  in 
the  house  furnace,  kitchen  range,  or  elsewhere  on  the  premises. 

(d)  Night-soil. — In  localities  where  there  are  no  sewers,  night- 
soil  is  usually  contained  in  privy  vaults,  which  are  specially  built 
for  the  purpose,  either  with  open  joints  to  permit  the  liquids  to  drain 
out,  or  with  tight  joints  requiring  both  solids  and  liquids  to  be  pumped 
out  periodically  and  removed  by  odorless  excavators.  (See  Chap- 
ter  XVI.) 

There  are  numerous  contrivances  in  America  and  Europe,  con- 
sisting of  pails,  barrels,  fosses  mobiles,  etc.,  which  are  placed  at  the 
bottom  of  the  soil  pipes  in  a  house  and  receive  the  droppings.  At 
suitable  intervals  of  time  the  full  receptacles  are  exchanged  for  empty 
ones  and  removed. 

One  of  the  best  contrivances  for  receiving  night-soil,  in  a  house 
for  which  there  is  no  sewer,  is  the  so-called  earth-closet,  first  intro- 
duced in  England  by  the  Rev.  Henry  Moule,  in  1863.  A  sufficiently 
large  pail,  barrel,  or  box,  is  placed  beneath  the  seat  of  a  closet,  a  suf- 
ficient supply  of  dry  and  finely  pulverized  earth,  sawdust,  charcoal, 
loam,  or  clay — but  not  sand — is  stored  in  the  closet  about  5  ft.  above 
the  seat,  and  filled  from  the  outside.  A  pipe  leads  from  it  to  the  bowl 
under  the  seat,  and  is  provided  with  a  valve.  By  means  of  a  pull, 
similar  to  that  of  a  water  closet,  a  fixed  quantity  of  earth,  sufiicient 
to  absorb  the  free  liquids,  is  released  and  spreads  over  the  fresh  fseces 
and  by  covering  them  prevents  offensive  odors.  This  contrivance 
has  been  especially  applicable  in  small  towns  or  suburbs  where  an 
opportunity  may  offer  to  utilize  the  material  in  gardens  or  on  fields. 

(e)  Dead  Animals. — The  dead  bodies  of  horses,  dogs,  and  cats  are 
usually  collected  from  the  house  or  stable  by  the  public  departments. 
The  treatment  at  the  house  prior  thereto  should  be  as  follows:  As 
soon  as  the  death  occurs,  notify  the  Health  Department.  Meantime, 
leave  the  body  in  a  suitable  place  for  collection,  and  keep  it  covered  so 
that  no  flies  or  other  insects  may  get  to  it.  Unless  the  body  is  removed 
within  twenty-four  hours,  a  good  disinfectant  must  be  liberally  scat- 
tered entirely  over  it,  and  the  body  again  covered.  (See  Chapter 
XVI.) 

G.— EDUCATION  OF  HOUSE  OCCUPANTS 

As  already  suggested,  the  education  of  the  house  occupant  to 
treat  properly  his  own  refuse  at  the  house  before  collection  is  impor- 
tant. In  cities  having  different  classes  of  inhabitants,  from  the  more 
careless  and  uneducated  to  the  most  particular,  it  is  very  difficult 
to  secure  uniform  house  treatment.  Only  systematic  and  persistent 
efforts  along  educational  lines  will  approximate  the  desired  result. 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  97 

Some  gain  can  be  secured  by  uniforming  the  workmen  in  the  col- 
lection service.     (See  Table  52,  in  Chapter  III.) 

The  difficulty  of  maintaining  the  desired  separation  of  refuse  at 
the  house  is  reflected  in  the  city  ordinances  of  New  York,  Chicago, 
etc.,  requiring  that  no  collection  be  made  unless  the  householder 
observes  the  rules  regarding  the  separation. 

H.— SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  details  of  the  house  treatment  of  refuse  discussed  in  this 
chapter  should  serve  to  show  and  to  emphasize  its  importance. 
Specific  conclusions  pertaining  to  all  conditions  cannot  be  drawn.  It 
is  necessary  to  study  this  subject  carefully,  together  with  a  consider- 
ation of  the  organization  and  routine  work  of  the  collection  depart- 
ment. The  relation  of  the  house  treatment  to  the  collection  service 
and  final  disposal  requires  more  attention  in  its  details  than  has  here- 
tofore been  given  to  it;  and,  to  secure  the  best  treatment,  the  hearty 
co-operation  of  the  householders  with  the  department  is  necessary. 
This  can  be  obtained  only  by  patient,  persistent,  and  intelligent 
instruction,  as  well  as  guidance,  on  the  part  of  the  officials  of  the 
department, 

I.— SAMPLES  OF  CARDS  AND  RULES 

Examples  of  house  cards  and  rules  published  by  city  departments 
having  charge  of  refuse  collection  work  have  been  selected  from 
various  parts  of  the  country,  and  are  shown  on  pages  98  to  103. 
Such  cards  should  be  hung  up  at  suitable  places,  as  a  constant 
reminder. 

In  Springfield,  Mass.,  the  collectors  report  each  case  where 
collection  has  not  been  made.  The  form  provided  for  the  purpose 
shows  the  street,  house  number  and  the  date,  and  indicates  that  the 
collection  could  not  be  made  for  one  of  the  following  reasons :  Locked 
door,  walks  not  shoveled,  can  not  in  convenient  place,  refuse  not 
separated,  rickety  barrels,  frozen  barrels,  large  barrels,  builder's 
rubbish,  garbage  not  on  ground  floor,  garbage  not  in  cans,  etc. 


98       COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


SPRINGFIELD,   MASS. 

BEAD  THIS  CARD  KEEP  THIS  CARD 

REGULATIONS 

FOR 

Collection  of  Household  Waste 

T%e  department  will  make  every  endeavor  to  render 
efficient  service,  but  will  assume  no  responsihility,  for  loss  or 
damage  to  property  if  ashes  or  rubbish  are  required  to  be 
removed  from,  within  buildings. 

SEPARATE  CONTAINERS 

Separate  containers  must  be  provided  for  garbage, 
ashes,  and  rubbish,  and  in  no  case  will  collections  be  made 
by  the  City  unless  the  following  separations  are  made: 

GARBAGE  COLLECTION 

Garbage:  The  term  "garbage"  means  all  vegetable 

matter  and  table  waste. 

Containers:         Covered  water-tight  metal  cans. 

Collections:  Twice  a  week. 

ASHES  COLLECTION 

Ashe»:  The  term   "Ashes"    includes  ashes,  floof 

sweepings,  broken  glass,  discarded  kitchen  ware,  tin 
eans,  and  worn-out  furniture.  No  material  will  be 
removed  that  accumulates  as  the  result  of  building 
operations. 

Containers:  Metal  cans,  or  barrels,  size  not  to  exceed  18 
inches  in  diameter  by  26  inches  high;  walks  leading  to 
containers  shall  be  cleared  of  ice  and  snow. 

Collections:  Once  a  month  in  summer  and  twice  a  month 
in  winter. 

RUBBISH  COLLECTION 

Rubbish:  The  term    "rubbish"    means  paper,  card- 

board boxes,  rags,  bottles,  metals,  old  clothes,  shoes, 
and  rubbers. 

Containers:  Light  metal  cans,  or  barrels,  canvas  or 
burlap  bags. 

Collections:  Once  a  month. 


Address  aW  complaints  to 

DEPARTMENT  OF  STREETS  AND  ENGINEERING 
Waste  Disposal  Division, 
.  Administration  Building,  Springfield.  Mass. 
Telephone  B  6100 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  99 

CLEVELAND,   OHIO. 


How  \o  Help  Keep  Our  City  Clean 

Suggestions  to  Householders  Relative  to  the  Collection 
of  Ashes,  Rubbish,  Waste  Paper  and  Garbage. 

ASHES  AND  RUBBISH 

The  collection  of  ashesand  rubbish  is  provided  only  in  households. 

In  order  to  facilitate  iand  make  possible  a  thorough  and  efficient 
collection  of  ashes  and  rubbish  householders  'should  provide  suitable 
receptacles  with  handles  and  covers,  and  place  the  ashes  and  rubbish 
therein.  These  receptacles  should  not  be  larger  than  can  be  carried  con- 
.veniently  to  the  wagon  after  they  are  filled.  If  there  is  refuse  that  can- 
not be  placed  in  the  receptacles  then  this  material  should  be  tied  in 
bundles. 

No  ashes  or  rubbish  will  be  removed  from  basements.  All  ma- 
terials to  be  removed  by  the  city  must  be  kept  in  a  place  that  will  make 
its  collection  convenient. 

Never  place  garbage,  vegetables  or  other  offensive  material  in  the 
6ame  receptacle  with  ashes  and  rubbish.  Bottles,  tin  cans,  etc.,  should 
be  placed'  with  the  rubbish  and  ashes  and  not  with  garbage.  Rubbish 
accumulated  in  yards — such  as  grass,  leaves,  twigs,  shrubs,  etc.,  if  not 
too  bulky  to  be  handled,  will  be  taken. 

WASTE  PAPER 
.    Waste,  paper  will  be  removed  from  business  places,  apartment 
Jiouses,   households  and  other  places  provided  it  is  kept  in  bags  or  tied 
in  bundles.    Waste  paper  niust  always  be  kept  in  a  dry  place. 

In  order  that  waiste  paper  may  be  kept  dry,  and  to  prevent  it  from 
blowing  about- the  premises  and  streets,  it  will- be  removed  from  base» 
ments  or  sheds,  but  collectors  will  not  enter  basements  unless  the  occu* 
pant  of  the  house  is  present  and  gives  his  or  her  consent.  If  paper  13 
kept  in  the  basement  it  should  be  in  a  convenient  place,  and  should  be 
J5«ar  the  foot  of  the  stairs.   • 

GARBAGE 

All  garbage  must  be  placed  in  a  metal  receptacle,  which  shall  be 
provided  with  a  top' or  cover.  For  a  family  of  ordinary  size  a  garbage 
"receptacle  holding  10  gallons  is  recommended. 

It  is  against  ordinances  regulating  the  public- health  to  throw  garb- 
age into  the  streets  or  allow  the  same  to  remain  exposed  and  not  in  a 
proper  receptacle. 

Do  not  deposit  anything  in  the  garbage  can  except  vegetable  mat- 
ter, table  refuse,  etc. 

No  collector  of  any  of  the  city  divisions  is  permitted  to  accept  any 
remuneration  froni  any  householder.  Any  collector  accepting  a  remun- 
eration will  be  dismissed  from  the  service. 

Householders  are  requested  to  report  any  inattention  on  the  part  of 
collectors  of  ashes,  rubbish,  waste  paper  and  garbage  to  the  Complaint 
Department^  314  City  Hall,  Main  4600  Station  6  or  Central  1  Station  6. 

By- complying  with  these  rules  you  will  aid  the  city  administration 
in  its  efforts  to  make  Cleveland  a  healthier,  cleaner  aad  better  city  in 
which  to  live. 

Let  us  all  do  our  part. 

V<ry  respectfully, 

HARRY  L.  DAVIS,  Mayor 


100     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


MILWAUKEE,   WIS. 

Hang  this  card  in  your  kitchen 

AND 

"CLEAN  THE  CAN" 

CITY  OF  Ml  LWaUKCE 

DEPARTMENT   OF    PUBLIC     WORKS 
GARBAGE    COLLECTION 


RULES. 

1.  Provide  Metallic  cans  having  Tight  fitting  covers  and  handles 

on  the  sides.  (Size  about  20  gallons). 

2.  Provide  enough  cans  to  hold  1  Week's  accumulation  of  garbage. 

3.  Place  the  cans  on  the  Ground,  floor,  where  easily  found. 

4.  First  Drain  the  garbage  of  all  water. 

5.  Then  Wrap  the  drained  garbage  in  a  piece  of  old  newspaper. 

6.  Put  only  Drained  artd  Wrapped  garbage  in  the  garbage  can.  No 

other  refuse  will  Jje  removed  by  the  garbage  collector, 
REASONS, 

1.  Garbage  is  the  animal  and  vegetable  waste  from  kitchens.  When 
rotten  it  smells  and  breeds  flies.  Fresh  garbage  is  inoffensive. 
Only  soiled,  wet  garbage,  in  dirty,  open  cans,  becomes-  fouL 
Wooden  pails  or  boxes  soak  up  the  foul  juices  from  the  garbage 
and  become  foul.  Uncovered  cans  attract  the  flies  and  hasten 
decay.  Unclean  cans  are  a  menace  to  health  and  will  be  report- 
ed to  the  Health  Department. 

2.  Garbage  is  collected  by  the  department  once  in  seven  days.  If 
this  is  not  done,  complaint  should  be  made  to  'phone  No.  4  City 
Hall  (Main  2595).  Be  sure  that  your  complaint  is  legitimate 
Unnecessary  complaints  waste  time  and  money.  As  garbage 
is  collected  at  night  look  into  the  can  before  complaining.  If 
you  burn  the  combustible  garbage  in  your  stove  or  furnance.the 
garbage  will  not  accummulate. 

3.  Place  the  can  in  a  Regular,  easily  found  place,  where  the  colleC' 

tor  can  always  get  it.  Do  not  keep  your  gate  locked.  If  you 
have  a  watch  dog,  chain  him  up.  Help  the  collector  and  co-oper- 
ate with  the  department. 

4.  Keep  the  garbage  wrapped  and  drained.  It  will  not  stick  to  the 
can  in  any  weather  and  the  can  will  not  become  foul.  Most  of  the 
nuisance  from  garbage  starts  in  the  garbage  can.  Garbage,  when 
foul  is  generally  so  because  decay  has  been  started  by  the  dirty 
open,  uncovered  can. 

5.  Flies  are  a  nuisance  and  carry  disease.     They  should  be  exter- 

minated. They  breed  in  garbage.  "Wrap  the  garbage  so  that 
the  flies  can  not  lay  their  eggs  in  it. 

6.  The  garbage  wagons  are  not  equipped  at  present  to  collect  any- 

thing but  garbage     Therefore  only  wrapped  and  drained  garb- 
age must  be  put  in  the  garbage  can. 
«^pi.54  "CLEAN  THE  CAN" 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  101 

MINNEAPOLIS,   MINN. 

Cin  ENGINEER'S  DEPARTMENT 

F.  W.  Cappelen,  ,City  Engineer 
DIVISION  GARBAGE   COLLECTION 

RULES 

Pertaining   to  the  Collection  of  Garbage 

1.  The  garbage  of  Minneapolis  is  collected  under 
the  direction  of  the  City  Engineer  and  by  the  authority 
of  the  City  Council.  (See  Resolution  passed  January 
8th,  1915.) 

2.  The  owner  or  occupant  of  each  house  is  required 
by  law  to  provide  metallic  cans,  with  close-fitting  cov- 
ers, and  with  handles  upon  the  sides. 

3.  Provide  a  sufficient  number  of  cans  to  hold  at 
least  seven  days'  Accumulation.  Cans  must  be  placed 
on  the  ground  floor,  near  the  alley,  easily  accessible 
to  the  collector,  and  when  filthy,  leaking,  or  in  any  way 
defective,  be  replaced  by  new  cans.  Garbage  cans 
must  be  of  a  20-gallon  size. 

4:  Drain  garbage  of  all  moisture,  then  wrap  it  in 
paper  before  putting  it  in  the  can,  and  it  will  neither 
smell  badly  in  hot'  weather,  nor  freeze  or  stick  to  the 
can  in  cold  weather. 

5.  Put  into  the  garbage  can  all  animal  and  vegetable 
refuse  from  the  kitchen,  rags,  waste  paper,  old  shoes, 
rubbers,  floor  sweepings,  and  all  miscellaneous  refuse 
that  will  burn.  Garbage  cans,  containing  water,  slops, 
ashes,  tin  cans,  glassware,  crockery,  or  manure,  will 
not  be  emptied  by  the  collector. 

6;  Report  all  dead  animals  to  this  Department,  giv- 
ing exact  location  of  same. 

7.  Please  do  not  ask  the  collector  to  do  your  janitor 
work.  He  is  paid  a  salary,  and  his  time  belongs  to  the 
City. 

8.  You  are  not  entitled  to  the  service  of  this  Depart- 
ment qnless  you  conform  to  these  rules. 

9.  After  you  have  complied  with  the  above  rules,  re- 
port all  complaints  to  the  Plymouth  Avenue  Station. 

.T.  B.  BUCKLEY,  N.  W.  Phone,  Nicollet  6261. 

^upt..  of  Garbage.  Tri^tate,  North  1368. 

HANG   THIS    UP   IN    YOUR    KITCHEN. 


102     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 
WINNETKA,   ILL. 

HANG  THIS  CARD  IN  YOUR  KITCHEN  FOR  REFERENCE 

VILLAGE  OF  WINNETKA 
Garbage,  A$h  and  Rubbish  Service 


NATURE  OF  SERVICE 

Section  241  of  the  Village  Code  of  Ordinances  requires 

mises  i 

1  garb;  _  . 

nd  aU  refuse  of  every  description  whatsoever,  and  keep  his  said 
premises  at  all  times  free  and  clear  of  any  accumulations  of  garbage,  ashes,  tin  cans  and 
'metal  ware,  broken  glass  and  crockery  and  stone  ware  and.  all  refuse  of  every  description 
whatsoever." 

Regular  collections  of  garbage  and  ashes  are  made  by  the  Village  for  a  monthly 
charge,  based  on  the  number  of  rooms  in  your  residence.  The  charge  for  a  five-room 
residence  is  $0.75  per  month  and  increases  $0,25  for  each  additional  rooqi.  Call  Win- 
ftetka  54  for  information. 

Tin  cans,  bottles  and  other  refuse  are  collected  universally  throughout  the  Village 
free  of  charge  out  of  funds  provided  by  the  special  two  mill  tax.  Garbage,  ashes  and 
rubbish  are  each  collected  in  specially  designed  vehicles  in  order  to  make  the  service 
clean,  sanitary  and  unobjectionable, 

TIME  OF  COLLECTIONS 

(Postal  card  notice  will  be  given  of  change's  in  this  schedule.) 
Garba  ^"^"^y'  "^^edaesday  and  Friday  of  each  week. 

Ashes 9lC^^fY.i 

Kubbish..QS  .^"??7 .9^.  .«'X?^.9fe':  .T?.®V.-! 


RULES  AND  REQULATIONS 

These  reg-ulations  are  based  on  the  Village  Garba.5,e  Ordinance  and  niust  be  carefully  observe^ 
They  are  designed  to  protect  your  health  and  to  give  all  an  efficient  service. 
Sepaffite  receptacles  must  be  provided  for  each  of  the  folloviring: 

1.  Garbage. 

2.  Ashes. 

.  3.    Tin  c^ns,  bottles  and  other'  refuse. 

It  is  very  important  that  each  of  the  three  foregoing  classes  be  kept  carefully  separate. 

Garbage  receptacles  must  be  metal  cans,  so  that  they  Way  easily  be  washed,  and  must  be  pro- 
vided with  a  tight  fitting  cover.     Keep  your  garbage  can  dean  at  aU  timei. 

Garbage  should  he  drained  and  wrapped  in  paper  in  cold  weather  to  prevent  freezing  to  the 
can. 

Ashes  should  be  placed  in  cans  or  other  receptacles  which,  tail  be  easily  handled  by  the  col- 
lectors.* 

Receptacles  should  be  placed  at  a  convenient  point  outside  the  building,  on  the  day  when 
your  collection  is  made.  An  observance  of  this  rule  will  greatly  improve  the  regularity  of  your 
service.     Time  required  for  collections   is  nearly  doubled  when  receptacles  are  kept  inside. 

Paper  will  be  collected  with  rubbish  if  desired.  It  is  expected,  however,  that  all  who  can 
will  save  magazines,  newspapers  and  old  books  for  the  Boy  Scouts. 

Collectors  are  not  allowed  to  spend  time  in  picking  up  refuse  which  has  not  previously 
been  placed  in  receptacles. 

Remember  the  collector's  time  is  valuable.  Efficient  service  can  only  be  rendered  by  co- 
operation on  the  part  of  the  householder. 

Collectors  are  instructed  to  be  courteous  at  all  times.  Any  incivility  should  be  reported  to 
the  Village  office  at  once. 

Householders  are  requested  to  instruct  their  help  in  the  observance  of  these  regulations. 

VERY  IMPORTANT — Householders  leaving  the  Village,  or  who  for  any  other  reason  wish 
service  discontinued,  temporarily  dr  {lermarlently,  should  notify  the  Village  office  to  that  effect. 
Neglect  to  do  this  causes  much  unnecessaryiinisunderstanding  about  the  period  which  our  bill 
for  service  should  cover. 


HOUSE  TREATMENT  103 

MONTCLAIR,    N.   J. 

JSeealution  Hegardtng  J^atiea  and  (garbage  (flolUcttnn 

Whereas,  By  ordinance  adopted  May  20th,  1$06,  it  was  ordained  that  ashes  and  garbage  made  and 
produced  within  the  hmits  of  the  Town  of  Montclair  should  be' collected,  renwved  and  disposed  of  at 
public  expense  in  such  manner  as  the  Council  shall  from  time  to  time  by  resolution  or  vote  of  the  majority 
of  spid  Council  determine ;  now  be  it 

Resolvtd,  That  the  following  rules  and  regulations  are  hereby  adopted  for  the  collection  of  ashes  and 
garbage  in  the  Town  of-  Montclair. 

RULES  AND  REGULATIONS  FOR  THE  COLLECTION  OF  ASHES  AND  GARBAGE  IN  THE 
TOWN  OF  MONTCLAIR. 

ASHES:  All  ashes  for  public  collection  must  be  placed. in  ihetal  containers  which  when  filled. will 
weigh  nbt  over  one  hundred  pounds  and  must  be  placed  outside  the  building  and  within  twenty  feet  thereof. 

Ashes  must  be  free  from  tin  cans,  paper  and  rubbish  of  every  description. 

GARBAGE;  Garbiige  for  public  collection  must  be  placed  in  containers  acceptable  to  the  Board  of 
Health  and  must  be  placed  outside  of  the  building  and  within  twenty  feet  thereof. 

Garbage  consists  of  waste  foodstuffs  only  and  must  be'  free  from  tin  cans,  paper  and  other  rubbish 
of  every  kind. 

GENERAL  REGULATIONS :  After  a  snow  fall  of  five  inches  or  more,  ashes  and  garbage  will  not 
be  collected  from  premises  where  a  path  at  least  two  feet  wide  is  not  shovelled  from  the  street  to  the 
location  of  the  ash  or  garbage  cans.  Where  use  of  driveways  is  refused  to  wagons,  ash  and  ^rbage  cans 
iqust  be  placed  at  the  curb  line  of  the  street. 

Ashes  or  garbage  placed  in  underground  receptacles  will  not  be  collected  by  town  mdi,  but  the  ash  or 
garbage  can  must  be  taken  from  the  receptacle  by  the  resident  and  placed  above  the  grotmd  in  a  location 
as  noted  above.  Collectors  are  allowed  in  no  case  to  enter  buildings  or  parts  thereof  for  the  collection  of 
ashes  or  garbage. 

Citizens  are  requested  not  to  oEfer  collectors,  grattiities  as  men  apprehended  in  accepting  such  will  be 
iitmiediately  discharged. 

Citizens  are  requested  to  make  all  complaints  to  the  Town  Engineer's  office  instead  of  attempting  to 
negotiate  with  the  collectors.     Telephone  2786  Montclair. 

Property  owners  will  greatly  facilitate  the  collection  of  both  the  ashes  and  garbage  by  coriiplying  with 
che  above  regulations  and  by  haying  the  ash  and  garbage  cans  out  in  the  proper  location  on  the  regular 
days  for  collection. 

Conditions  permitting,  two  collections  of  ashes  e?ich.  week  are  made  during  the  winter  montlis,  and  oiie 
collection  during  the  summer  months,  and  two  collections  of  garbage  each  week  throughout  the  year. 

Section  6  of  the  sanitary  code  of  the  Board  of  Health  reads  as  follows: 

Section  6.  All  garbage  and  ofFal  which  shall  accumulate  anywhere  in  the  Town  of  Montclair,  or  which 
.is  stored,  kept  or  retained  therem,  shall  be  kept  in  water-tight  iron  or  steel  receptacles  provided  with  tightly 
fitting  covers,  all  properly  treated  to  prevent  corrosion. 

Adopted  by  Town  Council  April  13th,  1914. 

HARRY  TRIPPETT. 

Town  Qerk. 


CHAPTER  III 
COLLECTION 

The  collection  of  refuse  is  an  intermediate  process  between  the 
house  treatment  and  the  final  disposal.  In  some  respects  it  is  the 
most  important  of  these  three  parts  of  the  problem.  Many  people  are 
affected  by  it  more  directly  than  by  the  other  two  parts,  and  the  cost  of 
collecting  municipal  refuse  is  normally  larger  than  that  of  the  dis- 
posal. This  branch  of  service  becomes  more  important  the  larger 
the  city,  but  it  has  been  frequentlj^  unsatisfactory  in  its  results.  The 
best  solution  must  be  based  on  the  special  conditions  of  each  case, 
and  is  practically  an  engineering  problem  of  plant,  power,  and  time; 
it  cannot  be  obtained  by  copying  other  cities  or  by  blindly  accepting 
the  claims  of  those  who  are  financially  interested. 

Conveying  the  refuse  from  the  points  of  origin  to  those  of  final 
disposal  is  divided  into  two  parts:  One  pertains  to  the  actual  collec- 
tion or  gathering  of  the  refuse  from  the  houses  into  the  wagons,  and 
the  hauling  of  it  to  proper  places  for  subsequent  transportation  or 
direct  delivery  to  places  of  final  disposal;  another  part  pertains  to 
the  transportation  of  the  refuse  by  secondary  means  after  the  original 
collection.  Such  secondary  methods  include  transportation  by  barges, 
motor  trucks,  street  railways,  and  railroad  cars,  and  are  not  now 
required  in  all  communities,  but  their  use  is  increasing  in  the  larger 
cities. 

The  subject  of  collection  is  discussed  in  the  present  chapter. 
The  subject  of  transportation  by  secondary  methods  is  discussed  in 
Chapter  IV. 

A.— REPORTS  AND  EARLY  CONCLUSIONS 

Until  quite  recently  the  details  of  the  collection  service  had 
rarely  received  the  consideration  from  city  officials  which  its  impor- 
tance deserved  on  account  of  both  cost  and  sanitary  efficiency.  Only 
within  the  last  few  years  have  engineers  succeeded  in  focusing  atten- 
tion on  this  subject.     The  matter  was  first  given  scientific  considera- 

104 


COLLECTION  105 

tion  by  the  Garbage  Committee  of  the  American  Pubhc  Health 
Association.  This  Committee,  in  1890,  sent  out,  in  pamphlet  form,  a 
questionnaire  on  refuse  disposal,  in  which  the  subject  of  collection 
was  very  carefully  covered  by  27  items.  From  time  to  time  the 
matter  has  received  additional  study.  In  a  paper  before  the  Inter- 
national Engineering  Congress,  held  at  St.  Louis  in  1904,  appears  the 
following  statement  by  Hering  on  the  collecting  of  refuse.* 

"It  will  be  evident  that  the  method  of  collecting  the  materials  just  de- 
scribed also  forms  an  important  part  of  the  work  under  discussion.  Not  only 
will  the  objectionable  qualities  of  the  refuse  require  special  precautionary 
consideration  and  special  methods  of  handling,  but  the  element  of  cost  of  trans- 
porting alone  sometimes  becomes  sufficiently  important  to  decide  the  method 
of  final  disposal.  Great  distances  for  hauling  may  act  against  the  economy  of 
operating  a  single  plant.  Conversely,  the  method  of  disposal  to  be  adopted 
sometimes  controls  the  necessary  manner  of  collection." 


An  efficient  and  faithful  collection  service,  depending  primarily 
on  a  scientific  study  and  an  economical  as  well  as  effective  organiza- 
tion, can  be  secured  only  through  the  entire  separation  of  the  depart- 
ment activities  from  the  frequently  changing  political  organization 
in  some  of  our  American  cities.  The  necessity  for  an  intimate 
familiarity  with  the  routes,  the  location  of  the  cans,  the  habits  and 
propensities  of  the  individual  householders,  the  complexities  of  the 
materials  to  be  gathered  and  conveyed,  with  their  tendencies  to  create 
nuisances  through  odor  and  dust,  if  not  properly  handled  at  proper 
times,  requires  long  experience  and  adequate  training.  The  force 
employed,  therefore,  should  be  as  nearly  permanent  as  practicable, 
and  the  men  in  the  department  should  be  encouraged,  by  a  reward 
for  the  best  work,  either  by  promotion  or  increase  of  pay. 

For  these  reasons  city  refuse  collection  should  only  be  done  by  con- 
tract when  the  municipal  department  is  known  to  be  wholly  incapable 
of  doing  the  work,  because  of  inexperienced  or  inefficient  employees. 
In  all  well-managed  cities  of  Europe,  with  a  longer  experience  than 
ours,  municipal  refuse  is  collected  only  by  force  account  with  well- 
trained  men.  The  results  are  high  efficiency  and  economy,  and, 
generally,  thorough  satisfaction  to  the  public  as  well  as  to  the  occu- 
pants of  houses. 

Within  the  last  few  years  further  careful  thought  has  been  given 
to  the  subject  of  refuse  collection,  and  several  important  reports  have 
been  made.     The  first  one  in  which  this  subject  was  isolated  from  the 

*  Transactions,  Am.  Soc.  C.E.,  Vol.  LIV,  Part  E  (1905),  p.  281. 


106     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

general  refuse  problem  was  presented  to  the  Western  Society  of  Engi- 
neers in  September,  1913.*     From  this  report  the  following  is  quoted: 

"Of  the  three  divisions  of  refuse  disposal  work,  the  collection  is  the  most 
important,  for  the  following  reasons: 

"  (1)  It  is  the  most  costly.  Table  51  shows  the  cost  of  collection  and  dis- 
posal, chiefly  for  garbage,  in  a  number  of  American  cities.  From  this  table  it 
is  evident  that  the  cost  of  collection  varies  from  two  to  eight  times  the  cost  of 
disposal.  The  house  treatment  involves  no  common  cost  to  the  community, 
but  against  all  householders  comes  the  cost  of  the  house  can  and  its  up-keep. 


Table  51. — Comparative  Cost  of  Collection  and  Disposal 


City 

Year 

Material 

Cost  per  Ton 

Authority 

Collec- 
tion 

Disposal 

Albany,  N.  Y 

Richmond  Borough, 
New  York  City .  .  . 

Seattle,  Wash 

Boston,  Mass 

Buffalo,  N.  Y 

Chicago,  111 

Cleveland,  Ohio 

Columbus,  Ohio 

Milwaukee,  Wis 

Minneapolis,  Minn... 

Buffalo,  N.  Y 

Averages 

Estimated 

1911 
Estimated 
1910 
1907 
1911 
1911 
1911 
1910 
1910 

1907 

Mixed  refuse 

Mixed  refuse 

Mixed  refuse 

All  refuse 

Garbage 

Garbage 

Garbage 

Garbage 

Garbage 

Garbage  and 

ashes 

Rubbish 

$1.84 

1.64 
1.30 
1.41 
2.19 
3.42 
2.83 
1.88 
2.85 

1.32 
4.90 

$0.41 

0.54(1) 
0.62 
0.43 

0.38 
1.04(2) 
0.77(2) 
0.90 

0.92(3) 
0.04(4) 

Wallace  Greenalch 

J.  T.  Fetherston 
George  H.  Moore 
Annual  Report 
F.  G.  Ward 
S.  M.  Singleton 
W.  J>.  Springborn 

E.  W.  Stribling 
Annual  Report 

Annual  Report 

F.  G.  Ward 

$2.42 

$0.60 

Notes- 


-(1)  Estimated  from  cost  per  cubic  yard. 

(2)  Profit. 

(3)  Cost  of  garbage  disposal  only. 

(4)  Cost  after  deducting  profit  from  rubbish  sorting  plant. 


"(2)  More  numerous  complaints  arise  from  the  failure  of  the  collection 
service  than  from  the  house  treatment  or  the  disposal  of  refuse.  At  Milwau- 
kee, during  two  years,  Greeley  found  that  only  three  complaints  were  received 
against  the  disposal  system,  whereas  the  complaints  against  the  collection 
service  ranged  from  five  to  fifty  per  day,  being  more  in  summer  and  less 
in  winter. 

"  (3)  The  collection  service  affects  more  people  more  directly  than  does  the 
disposal  part  of  the  work.  An  unsanitary  point  of  disposal  is  generally  in  an 
isolated  place  where  it  affects  but  few  dwellings  and  comparatively  few  people. 
On  the  other  hand,  failure  to  provide  frequent  collection  service  affects  directly 

*  Journal,  Western  Soc.  Engineers,  Vol.  XVII,  No.  9. 


iervice  Commission  of  Chicago,  1913.) 


Garbage  Collection  and  Removal 


Type  of 

wagon 

used 


Kind 

of 
cover 


Method 

of 

unloading 


Disposition 


No.  of 

auto  trucks 

for 

removal 

of  waste 


. ,,  jlostly  barrels  on 
AlDi  wagons 

_   ,  Jigh  sides,  cov- 
iJall  ere(j  tops 

and  2-horse 
^08  wagons 
Chirhorse;  steel  box 
Cinron  boxes 

Rear-end 
^'•'^       dump-wagon 
^  ,    Special  wagon 
^°''       hand-hoist 

Single  wagon, 
^^\       steel  boxes 

Grs^teel  tanks 

Ind 

Kai^ood  tanks 

Miiteel  tanks 

Miiron  boxes 

^g^arts 

Nei 

Kteel  carts 
0eel  carts 
Jfon  carts 

Varts 

Oirfon  boxes 

Por)ump-wagons 
_,  ./letal  bodies, 
"'^^  rear-dump 
Proteel  boxes 

Rocteel  wagons 

„     'letal-lined, 
°^°  water-tight  box 
SeaV^ooden  wagons 
St.  'ank-wagons 

Tol/Ietal  tanks  I 

_.   teel  removable 
"^'  bodies 


Steel 
Steel 

Steel 

Canvas 
Canv  is 

Canvas 


Steel 


Wooden 
Canvas 


Iron 


Canvas 


Canvas 
Metal 
Wood 
Canvas 

Metal 


Iron 
Metal  and 


Steel 


Rear  dump 

Automatic  rear- 
dump 
Derrick 
Lever  dumping 

Dumped 

Hand  hoist 

Boxes  put  on  flat 
cars  by  electric 
crane 

Electric  hoist  to 
cars 

Self -dumping 

Hoisted  by  crane 
Hoisted  by  crane 
Self -dumping 

Self-dumped 
Self-dumped 
Self-dumped 
Self -dumped 

Hand-dumped 
Dumped  rear 
Shoveled  out 
Tipping-bottom, 
rear  dump 

Rear-dump  < 

Dumped 
Rear-dump 

Derrick  < 

Derrick 


Piggery 
Reduction 

By  contract 
Reduction 


Reduction 

Reduction 

f  Private  reduc- 
\      tion  company 

f  Cremation   and 
1       piggery 
Reduction 

Fed  to  hogs 
Incinerated 
Incinerated 
Dumped 

Reduction 
Cremation 
Reduction 
Incineration 

Piggery 

Incineration 

Reduction 

Piggery 

Reduction 

Privately  owned 

destructor 
Incinerator 
In  river 

Reduction  by 
contract 

Reduction 


None 

One 

One 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 

None 
None 


One  . 
None 
None 

None 
None 
None 
None 


None 
None 
One 

None 

Five  trucks 

None 

3  trucks  to  haul 

from  loading 

station 


To  face  page  106. 


Cities  Regarding  Refuse  Collection  and  Removal.     {From  Report  of  Civil  Service  Coraraission  of  Chicago,  1913.) 


i 


y  Asa  Collection  i 


Rubbish 

and  ashes 
collected 


Gabdaqe  Collection  j 


Albany.  N.  Y 

100,253 

Baltimore,  Md 

558,485 

BoBton,  Moss 

070,585 

Chicago,  III 

2,307,638 

Cincinnati,  Ohio 

363,591 

Cleveland,  Ohio 

550,663 

Columbufl,  Ohio 

131,511 

Detroit,  Mich 

465,766 

Grand  Rapids,  Mich 
Indianapolis,  Ind..  . 
Kansas  City,  Mo. . . 


Minneapolis,  Minn.  . 

301,408 

Milwaukee,  Wis 

373,857 

New  Orleans,  La 

330,075 

Now  York: 

West  New  Brighton 

35,960 

Omaha,  Nebr 

124,096 

Portland,  Ore 

207,214 

PhUndelphia,  Pa 

1,549,008 

Providence,  R.  I 

224,326 

Ilocheetcr,  N.  Y 

218,149 

San  Francisco,  Cal... 

416,912 

Seattle,  Wash 

St.  Joseph,  Mo 

237,194 
77,403 

Toledo,  Ohio 

168,497 

White  duck 
Khaki 


Wnahington,  D.  C. 


White  duck 
White  duck 

White  duck 
White  canva 
White  duck 
White  duck 
White  canva 
White  duck 
White  duck 
Khnki 

None 


brown  duck 
i'hitc  di 


Laborers 
City 


LaborcrB 
Laborers 


City 
Laborers 

Laborers 

Latiorera 

Laborers 
City 

Contractor 
City 


Laborers 
Laborers 


Triple 
Dual 

Triple 
Triple 
Dual 
Triple 


Laborers 
Laborers 
Laborers 

Laborers 
Laborers 
City 
Contractor 

Laborers 


Laborers 
Laborers 


Triple 

Dual 
Dual 
Triple 


Carta  and 


Wagons 


Individuals 
City 


Contracl 
Contraci 
Privately 


Carta 
Carts 
Wagons 


Wagons 
Wagons 


raxle 


Wagons  dumped 
Hand 

r  dumping 
Drop-bottom 

Lever  dumping 
Hand  labor 
Dumped  from 


Bottom-dump 
Hand  labor 

Hand  labor 
Hand  labor 
Hand  labor 
Hand  labor 
Hand  labor 
Hand  labor 
Back  dump 


Rear  dump 
Hand  labor 


Dumps 

Contractor 

City  dumps 

Dumps 

Dumps 

Dumps 

Dumps 


ground 
Dumped  in  Slls 
Dumped 

Burned  or  sold 


Dumped     in 
■     ds 


f  Private 

\    collector 

City 

Contractor 

City 

City 

City  { 

City 

City 

City  { 

Contractor 

Contract 

Contract  I 

City 

City 

City 

City 

City 

City 

City 

Contract 

Contractor 


Wagons 
Rcar-cnddump' 
Wagons 
Wagons 
Steel  tanks  on 


Single  ' 
Carta 


1       dump-wagon 
■Special  wagon 
hand-hoifit 
f  Single  wagon, 
1       steel  boxes 

Steel  tanks 


Wood  tanks 

Steel  tanks 


Wooden 
Canvas 


Steel  boxes 
Steel  wagons 
Mctal-Iined, 

ter-tight  box 


Metal  tanks 
Steel  removable 


Canvas 
Metal 
Wood 


dump 
Derrick 

Lever  dumping 
Dumped 
Hand  hoist 
Boxes  put  on  flat 
cara  by  electric 

Electric  hoist  to 
Self -dumping 


Hoisted  by  oral 
Hoisted  by  era 
Self -dumping 

Self-dumped 
Self-dumped 
Self-dumped 
Self-dumped 


Hand-dumped 
Dumped  rear 
Shoveled  out 
Tipping-bnttom 


Derrick 


Piggery 
Reduction 


Reduction 
Reduction 

f  Private  reduc- 
\       tion  company  ' 
f  Cremation   and  f, 

Reduction 

Fed  to  hogs 

Incinerated 


Reduction 

Incineration 

Piggery 

Reduction 
Piggery 
Reduction 
Privately  owned 


fl 


COLLECTION  107 

the  people  who  should  receive  the  service  and  their  neighbors  as  well.  Failure 
to  make  collections  makes  necessary  the  accumulation  of  decomposable  refuse 
in  the  back  yard,  which  may  create  a  nuisance  for  people  Hving  in  the  same 
block." 

In  the  same  year,  the  Bureau  of  Economy  and  Efficiency,  at  Mil- 
waukee, published  a  bulletin  entitled  "  Garbage  Collection."  The 
field  studies  for  this  report  included  detailed  time  studies  of  the  col- 
lection wagons,  to  determine  the  number  of  collections  which  could  be 
made  by  a  wagon  of  given  capacity,  the  rate  of  travel,  the  number  of 
loads  per  day,  and  other  special  elements  of  the  collection  service. 
The  report  comments  adversely  on  night  collections,  and  makes  a 
strong  plea  for  washing  and  disinfecting  the  wagons  at  frequent 
intervals.  The  frequency  of  garbage  collection  recommended  is  as 
follows : 

Winter  collections:    Business  section,  5  times  a  week;    all  other 

sections,  once  a  week. 
Summer  collections:   Business  section,  6  times  a  week;   all  other 

sections,  twice  a  week. 

Reports  have  been  made  by  Hering  and  Gregory  for  Trenton  and 
Dayton,  in  which  the  details  of  the  equipment  required  and  its  opera- 
tion for  different  methods  of  disposal  were  carefully  worked  out  and 
included  in  the  estimates  of  cost  for  various  projected  methods  of  dis- 
posal. 

More  recently,  the  question  of  collection  has  received  special  con- 
sideration in  Chicago.  The  1913  report  of  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission on  the  Bureau  of  Streets,  gives  much  information  relative  to 
the  local  methods  of  collecting  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish.  It  con- 
tains a  table,  with  data  from  a  number  of  cities,  relating  to  the  col- 
lection service.  Table  52  has  been  made  up  from  the  data  contained  in 
this  report  collected  from  25  cities.     It  also  covers  uniforms. 

Following  the  previous  report,  the  City  Waste  Commission  of 
Chicago  secured,  from  Messrs.  Osborn  and  Fetherston,  a  report  on  the 
refuse  problem  which  discusses  the  collection  of  refuse,  as  follows: 

"In  any  method  adopted  for  the  collection  of  refuse,  there  are  four  requi- 
sites for  success: 

"1.  A  sufficient  appropriation. 

"2.  An  efficient  organization. 

"3.  Sanitary  and  economical  methods  of  work. 

"4.  Co-operation  on  the  part  of  the  public. 

"The  first  essential  is  self-evident,  for,  in  order  to  render  satisfactory  ser- 
vice, sufficient  funds  must  be  provided  to  carry  out  the  work.     The  appropria- 


108     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

tion  will  be  regulated  to  a  large  extent  by  the  degree  of  success  obtained  in  the 
development  of  the  other  three  requisites. 

"An  efficient  organization  cannot  be  maintained  without  a  sufficient  appro- 
priation, neither  can  work  be  conducted  satisfactorily  or  economically  without 
an  efficient  organization  and  a  sufficient  appropriation.  Co-operation  on  the 
part  of  the  public  cannot  be  expected  without  rendering  satisfactory  service. 
All  four  requisites  are  dependent  on  each  other  to  obtain  the  maximum  degree 
of  success." 

These  and  other  investigations  and  reports  have  resulted  in  more 
serious  attempts  on  the  part  of  the  cleansing  superintendents  to 
improve  the  collection  service.  This  result  has  been  reflected  recently 
in  more  systematic  and  complete  annual  reports  by  department  chiefs 
and  in  more  comprehensive  and  careful  specifications  under  which 
bids  for  collection  work  have  been  asked. 


B.— METHODS  OF  COLLECTION 

The  collection  of  refuse  must  be  controlled  by  two  main  require- 
ments: No  odor;  no  dust. 

In  the  cities  of  America  and  Europe,  one  finds  a  great  variety  of 
methods  and  equipments  for  collecting  refuse.  Many  styles  of  wagons 
for  garbage  and  ashes  are  in  use,  and  their  capacities  in  America  range 
from  1.5  to  6.0  cu.  yd.  The  wagons  are  sometimes  covered  and  some- 
times open.  The  interval  between  collections  varies  from  daily  to 
once  a  week,  or  much  longer  for  ashes  and  rubbish.  Methods  for 
keeping  the  wagons  clean  are  more  conspicuous  by  their  absence  than 
by  their  existence.  Cleaning  wagons  is  more  important  in  America  than 
abroad,  because  here  it  is  a  frequent  practice  to  collect  garbage  sepa- 
rated from  ashes  and  rubbish.  To  keep  clean  those  wagons  in  which 
raw  garbage  is  collected  requires  frequent  and  regular  attention. 

It  is  significant  that  in  Europe,  in  general,  there  is  a  better  col- 
lection service  than  in  America,  and  more  uniform  methods  are  used. 
Almost  everywhere  there  are  in  use  large  steel  wagons  holding  from 
3  to  5  cu.  yd.,  and  having  fixed  covers.  The  collections  are  made  at 
least  three  times  a  week,  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish,  as  stated  in 
Chapter  II,  being  generally  combined  and  collected  in  the  same 
wagon.  The  work  is  often  done  at  night,  the  householder  having 
set  the  refuse  can  out  on  the  curb  in  front  of  the  house  in  the  early 
evening.  The  collection  wagons  are  washed  daily.  In  both  coun- 
tries horses,  gasoline,  electricity,  and  steam  are  the  powers  used  for 
the  collection.  Horses  have  been  used  from  the  earliest  times,  and 
still  have  their  value  and  preference  under  certain  conditions.  Motor 
trucks  have  been  driven  by  gasoline,  electricity,  and  steam.     The 


COLLECTION  109 

steam  wagons  have  disappeared,  as  being  less  simple  than  either  gaso- 
line or  electricity.  Between  gasoline  and  electricity,  the  former  is 
the  more  simple  and  reliable,  and  therefore  is  preferred  in  most 
cities,  except  where  electricity  can  be  obtained  very  conveniently 
and  cheaply. 


C— RELATION  OF  COLLECTION  TO  HOUSE  TREATMENT  AND 
FINAL  DISPOSAL 

An  intimate  relation  exists  between  the  various  parts  of  the  refuse 
problem  of  a  municipality.  The  organization  of  the  collection  service 
must  satisfy  the  popular  needs.  Special  requirements  of  the  different 
classes  of  people  living  in  different  districts  of  the  city,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  the  seasons  must  be  considered.  Both  the  sanitary  efficiency 
and  the  cost  depend  to  a  marked  degree  on  the  householders.  (See 
Chapter  II.)  Investigations  and  reports,  looking  to  a  better  service, 
which  do  not  distinctly  consider  the  requirements  of  householders 
and  the  available  methods  for  fulfilling  these  requirements,  fail  in 
this  important  part  of  the  service.  Regularity  of  the  service,  uniform- 
ing the  employees,  arranging  time  schedules  for  visiting  the  houses, 
and  many  important  details  should  be  included  in  such  investigations. 
Further,  the  suppression  of  noise,  odors,  and  dust  from  collecting 
wagons,  both  night  and  day,  is  necessary  to  satisfy  the  public. 

One  of  the  difficult  points  to  settle  concerning  the  garbage  col- 
lection is  the  proper  location  of  the  can.  (See  Chapter  II.)  Some- 
times the  cans  are  kept  in  places  where  the  collector  cannot  find  them 
readily.  This  is  more  apt  to  be  the  case  in  districts  populated  by 
foreigners.  It  is  advisable  to  employ  an  inspector  of  the  same  nation- 
ality as  the  people"  in  such  districts,  and  his  chief  duty  should  be  to 
promote  co-operation  between  the  householder  and  the  collection 
department.  An  improvement  of  the  appearance  of  back  yards  and 
alleys  often  follows  carefully  planned  educational  work  of  this  char- 
acter. 

In  some  communities,  methods  of  refuse  disposal  have  been  adopted 
and  disposal  works  built  in  advance  of  a  study  of  the  best  general 
collection  service.  In  such  cases,  the  character  of  the  collection  is 
influenced  to  a  great  extent  by  the  method  of  disposal,  sometimes 
requiring  special  wagon-bodies  suitable  for  the  necessary  unloading 
equipment  at  the  disposal  plant.  The  adopted  method  of  disposal 
may  add  materially  to  the  collection  cost. 

In  small  cities  where  the  population  per  acre  is  small  it  may 
often  be  quite  unnecessary  to  have  a  public  collection  of  ashes,  rub- 
bish,  and   manure.     Garbage   may  be  the   only  material  requiring 


110     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

collection.  Then,  particularly  if  the  houses  are  far  apart,  small 
garbage  wagons  of  special  design  may  be  more  suitable  than  large 
ones. 

Householders  in  Buffalo  are  required  to  make  three  separations: 
Ashes  and  floor  sweepings  are  placed  in  one  receptacle,  garbage  in 
another,  and  rubbish  in  the  third.  All  receptacles  must  be  left  in 
places  accessible  to  the  contractor's  men,  and  these  men  bring  them 
to  the  curb,  and,  after  they  are  emptied,  return  them  to  their  original 
places.  All  rubbish  is  owned  by  the  city,  and  is  carted  by  the  con- 
tractor to  the  city's  rubbish  utilization  plant,  where  it  is  sorted. 
All  material  of  no  commercial  value  is  burned  in  the  furnace,  and 
helps  to  generate  steam  for  the  city's  sewage  pumping  plant. 

In  Salt  Lake  City,  at  first,  the  separation  was  not  very  satisfactory, 
but  it  is  being  improved  by  educational  work  through  publicity  in  the 
newspapers,  by  collectors  and  other  agents  of  the  contractors,  and, 
where  needed,  through  tagging  the  garbage  receptacle  with  a  5^  by  7-in. 
buff -colored  card  of  explanation,  headed  boldly,  "  This  Receptacle  is 
Not  Emptied  for  the  Reason  that  the  Garbage  and  Waste  Matter  is 
Not  Properly  Separated,"  followed  by  instructions  which,  if  observed 
by  the  householder,  will  ensure  collection.  The  separation  is  rapidly 
improving, 

D.— GENERAL  CONDITIONS 

Before  discussing  in  detail  the  chief  elements  which  control  the 
collection,  haul,  and  delivery  of  municipal  refuse,  it  is  necessary  to 
consider  certain  general  conditions  which  influence  the  work  of  col- 
lection in  an  indirect  way. 

1.  Quantity  of  Materials. — The  quantity  of  refuse  materials 
produced  depends  on  the  habits  of  the  people  making  up  the  com- 
munity and  on  the  season  of  the  year.  The  unit  quantities  of  the 
various  refuse  materials  produced  under  different  conditions  have 
been  stated  in  Chapter  I.  The  quantity  produced  at  each  house 
influences  the  collector's  work.  It  is  not  economical  for  a  collector 
to  make  a  trip  from  the  backyard  to  his  wagon  regularly  with  two  or 
three  small  cans  from  the  same  place  at  one  visit.  Therefore  the  size 
of  the  can  and  the  interval  between  collections  should  be  planned  so 
that  at  each  visit  the  collector  will  remove  one  can  practically  full 
of  refuse. 

The  schedule  of  operations  should  be  varied  to  meet  also  the 
seasonal  fluctuations  in  the  quantity  of  refuse.  Often  this  can  be 
accomplished  by  providing  wagons  of  different  capacities.  A  proper 
use  of  wagons  of  different  sizes,  with  variations  in  the  route  and  in  the 


COLLECTION  HI 

frequency  of  collection  from  season  to  season,  can  sometimes  be  made 
advantageously. 

Communities  producing  more  refuse  will  have  a  correspondingly 
greater  cost  for  collection.  In  Europe  it  is  estimated  that  an  average 
of  about  0.04  cu.  ft.  of  combined  house  refuse  is  produced  per  capita 
per  working  day;  in  American  cities  the  quantity  averages  about 
0.10  cu.  ft.  or  2\  times  as  much.  Therefore,  the  collection  depart- 
ments in  American  cities  must  take  away  more  than  twice  as  much 
refuse  as  is  removed  in  European  cities  from  the  same  population. 
American  cities,  by  the  way,  are  obliged  to  remove  also  more  than 
twice  as  much  sewage. 

The  actual  quantities  of  garbage  collected  in  several  cities  where 
fairly  accurate  records  are  known  to  have  been  kept,  have  ranged 
from  0.20  to  0.53  lb.  per  capita  per  working  day  of  310  days  per  year, 
the  present  average  being  not  far  from  0.50  lb.  and  0.70  lb.  per  day 
during  the  maximum  month,  but  the  maximum  day  during  the  year 
will  exceed  this  figure. 

2.  Character  of  Materials. — The  composition  and  character  of 
a  city's  refuse,  as  collected,  is  determined  by  the  degree  of  separation 
at  the  house,  the  weather,  and  the  habits  of  the  people.  Mixed  refuse 
is  a  fairly  dry  material  in  which  the  garbage  is  largely  obscured  by  the 
rubbish  and  ashes.  Such  a  material  is  less  objectionable  to  handle 
than  raw  garbage.  Three  separations,  as  occasionally  found  in 
America,  generally  require  three  different  kinds  of  wagons,  and  the 
collection  work  is  correspondingly  complicated. 

3.  Climate. — In  cold  climates,  during  the  winter,  garbage  does  not 
decompose  as  rapidly  as  in  summer,  and,  as  smaller  quantities  are 
produced  at-  such  times,  the  interval  between  collections  can  be 
increased.  In  southern  cities,  warm  most  of  the  year,  more  frequent 
winter  collections  are  necessary.  To  some  extent,  the  climate  influ- 
ences also  the  type  of  wagons  which  should  be  used.  Where  heavy 
snows  are  frequent,  hauling  becomes  more  difficult,  and  large  wagons 
cannot  well  be  used  for  continuous  service. 

4.  Pavements  and  Grades. — The  team  haul  in  refuse  collection 
is  affected  materially  by  the  character  of  the  pavements  and  the 
steepness  of  the  streets.  It  is  sometimes  possible,  by  proper  routing, 
to  have  the  collection  wagons  make  their  trips  up  hill  when  empty 
and  down  hill  when  full.  From  this  point  of  view,  collection  work 
may  be  actually  lighter  in  a  hilly  city  than  in  a  flat  one.  In  flat  cities 
intersected  by  watercourses,  the  bridges  are  frequently  raised  above 
the  street  grade,  and  the  size  of  the  load  which  might  be  carried  on  a 
level  over  the  greater  part  of  the  way  must  be  reduced  on  account  of 
the  up-hill  haul  at  the  bridge  approaches.     The  weights  which  can  be 


112     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

hauled  by  one  horse  up  different  grades,  and  over  good,  hard  pave- 
ments, are  as  follows  (data  by  J.  B.  Potter) : 

Grade  percentage 0  1         2         2.4       3.3       4  5 

Net  load  for  one  horse,  in  pounds  4000     3600     3240    2880   2540     2000     1600 

E.— DETAILED  CONDITIONS  AND  REQUIREMENTS 

The  prime  consideration,  in  order  to  give  satisfaction  in  refuse  col- 
lection, is  to  secure  the  most  sanitary  and  economical  service,  from 
the  viewpoints  of  the  householder  and  of  the  community  as  a  whole. 
The  efficiency  of  the  service  results  largely  from  the  individual  ability 
of  the  men  of  the  organization,  and  is  increased  by  improved  standards 
of  operation  and  individual  work.  The  element  of  cost  is  influenced 
by  the  kind  of  equipment  used  and  the  general  rules  of  operation  of  the 
department. 

The  cost  can  be  analyzed  more  readily  than  the  efficiency  of  the 
service.  This  is  particularly  apparent  when  laying  out  the  schedules 
of  equipment  and  operation  for  new  works.  The  estimates  of  cost 
can  be  made  with  a  fair  degree  of  certainty,  when  properly  realizing 
all  the  detailed  conditions  which  affect  the  work.  The  two  principal 
items  of  cost  relate  to  the  loading  and  hauling.  The  efficiency  depends 
largely  on  the  human  element. 

The  cost  of  collection  will  vary  in  different  communities,  depend- 
ing on  the  scale  of  wages,  hours  for  work,  the  efficiency  of  labor, 
and  other  items.  Combined  collection  is  cheaper  because  but  one 
type  of  wagon  is  used,  and  the  same  territory  requires  but  one  trip. 
Direct  cost  comparisons,  therefore,  are  difficult  to  make.  A  better 
basis  of  comparison  in  different  cities  is  the  determination  of  the 
number  of  collection  wagons  of  given  capacity  per  unit  of  population. 
Still  other  conditions,  such  as  frequency  of  collection  and  the  time 
required  to  make  collections  from  each  house,  also  influence  the  cost. 
However,  the  best  bases  for  comparison  are  records  of  man-hours 
and  ton-miles,  as  they  are  independent  of  wages  and  the  length  of  the 
working  day.     Unfortunately,  such  records  are,  as  yet,  rarely  made. 

All  these  conditions  should  be  viewed  in  their  proper  relations. 
It  is  convenient,  first,  to  consider  the  various  special  conditions 
affecting  the  number  of  collection  wagons  required  in  the  service, 
because  the  total  cost  of  collection  can  then  be  determined  from  that 
number. 

1.  Frequency  of  Collection. — The  interval  between  collections  is 
one  of  the  factors  which  determine  the  quantity  of  refuse  that  should 
be  collected  each  time  at  each  house.  The  interval  should  be  suf- 
ficently  short  to  prevent  nuisance,  satisfy  the  householder,  and  give 


COLLECTION  113 

opportunity  for  approximately  one  full  can  of  refuse  to  accumulate. 
From  hotels  and  restaurants  the  collection  should  be  made  daily. 
The  frequency  of  collection  in  various  cities  in  America  and  abroad  is 
as  follows: 

New  York. — In  the  built-up  districts  of  Manhattan,  The  Bronx,  and 
Brooklyn,  the  collections  are  made  six  times  a  week.  In  the  outskirts  the 
collections  are  less  frequent.  In  the  Borough  of  Richmond  the  collections  are 
uniform  throughout  the  year,  daily  in  the  more  populated  districts  and  three 
times  a  week  in  districts  where  the  population  is  not  so  dense.  In  the  Borough 
of  Queens  collections  are  made  every  day  in  summer  and  every  other  day  in 
winter,  except  in  thickly  populated  areas,  where  daily  collections  are  made. 

Philadelphia. — Garbage  is  removed  six  times  a  week  from  all  buildings 
in  the  built-up  districts  throughout  the  year. 

Buffalo. — Garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  are  collected  daily,  all  the  year 
round,  from  the  business  section.  From  the  remainder  of  the  city,  they  are 
collected  twice  a  week  from  May  to  November,  and  once  a  week  from  No- 
vember to  May. 

Milwaukee. — Garbage  collection  varies  from  daUy  for  hotels  and  restau- 
rants to  weekly  for  residences,  throughout  the  year.  Ashes  and  rubbish  are 
collected  about  twice  a  month. 

Minneapolis. — Garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  are  collected  weekly,  except 
from  hotels  and  restaurants,  where  the  collection  is  more  frequent.  The  gar- 
bage is  all  wrapped  in  paper  to  retard  its  decomposition. 

Rochester. — Garbage  is  collected  daily  (except  Sundays),  in  the  central 
portion  of  the  city,  from  May  15th  to  October  15th,  and  three  times  a  week 
in  the  remaining  part  of  the  city;  from  October  15th  to  May  15th,  twice  a  week 
in  the  central  portion  of  the  city,  and  once  a  week  in  the  remainder.  Mixed 
ashes  and  rubbish  are  collected  weekly  through  the  fall,  winter,  and  spring, 
and  semi-weekly  in  summer. 

Denver. — Garbage  is  collected  once  a  week  in  winter,  and  three  times  a 
week  in  summer, 

Columbus. — Garbage  is  collected  weekly  from  November  to  May,  and 
twice  a  week  from  May  to  November.  Garbage  and  rubbish  are  collected 
daily  from  hotels  and  restaurants.  Ashes  and  rubbish  are  collected  once  every 
10  days. 

Salt  Lake  City. — In  the  business  district  collections  are  made  daily 
between  7  p.m.  and  3  a.m.  In  the  residence  section  collections  are  made  once 
a  week  in  the  day  time,  the  city  being  divided  into  six  zones,  having  a  collection 
in  each  zone  on  a  stated  day  of  the  week. 

Los  Angeles. — The  central  and  down-town  districts  receive  collection 
three  times  a  week.     All  other  districts  receive  two  collections  a  week. 

London,  Paris,  Berlin,  and  Cologne. — Mixed  refuse  is  collected  daily. 

Hamburg,  Bremen,  Frankfort,  and  Essen. — Mixed  refuse  is  collected 
three  times  a  week. 

In  the  built-up  sections  of  northern  cities  there  should  be  at  least 
three  collections  per  week  in  summer  and  two  in  winter;   in  southern 


114     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

cities  the  collections  should  be  twice  as  often,  or  as  local  conditions 
may  require. 

Osborn  and  Fetherston  recommend  for  Chicago  that  regular  and 
systematic  collection  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  be  made  sepa- 
rately at  daily  or  tri-weekly  intervals,  depending  on  the  character  of 
the  districts  served  and  the  seasons  of  the  year.  This  is  a  high 
standard  for  American  cities  and  rarely  found,  but  it  is  frequently 
maintained  in  Europe. 

The  frequencj'^  of  garbage  collection,  whether  it  is  or  is  not  com- 
bined with  rubbish,  should  depend  on  the  season,  and  not  on  the 
density  of  population,  as  garbage  becomes  odorous  as  quickly  in  the 
suburbs  as  in  the  center  of  a  city.  If  possible,  garbage  should  be 
collected  daily  in  hot  weather,  at  least  three  times  a  week  in  spring 
and  fall,  and  not  less  than  twice  a  week  in  cold  weather. 

When  refuse  is  left  at  the  rear  of  premises  for  collection  from 
alleys,  it  is  not  so  important  to  have  specified  days  and  hours  for  the 
collection  as  when  left  in  front  of  buildings  on  the  sidewalks. 

In  warm  weather,  garbage  should  be  collected  at  intervals  of  not 
more  than  two  days,  on  account  of  its  rapid  decomposition.  Ashes 
should  be  collected  once  or  twice  a  week  in  winter,  on  account  of  their 
quantity,  and  once  or  twice  a  month  in  summer.  In  Milwaukee, 
throughout  the  summer  of  1911,  an  attempt  was  made  to  collect  no 
ashes  from  residences  between  June  15th  and  September  15th.  It 
was  found  necessary,  however,  to  make  a  collection  during  July, 
because  of  the  many  requests  that  were  received.  Rubbish  should 
not  remain  uncollected  longer  than  a  month.  Mixed  refuse  does  not 
decompose  nearly  so  quickly  as  garbage  alone,  but  it  accumulates 
more  rapidly.  In  European  cities  it  is  collected  from  three  to  six 
times  a  week,  in  American  cities  only  from  one  to  three  times  a  week, 
and  therefore  at  less  cost. 

The  difficulties  often  arising  from  infrequent  collection,  and  the 
consequent  and  inevitable  putrefaction,  have  caused  many  endeavors 
to  be  made  to  disinfect  the  garbage.  It  has  been  tried,  particularly 
in  Brussels,  but  the  conclusion  reached  was  that  it  affords  only  a 
temporary  relief,  and  is  far  from  justifying  the  requisite  expenditure. 

In  reference  to  the  disinfection  of  collection  vehicles,  the  Public 
Health  Service  of  the  U.  S.  Government  states  as  follows: 

"  It  is  not  suggested  that  any  other  solution  except  water  should  be  used 
on  wagons  returning  from  the  point  of  disposal;  but,  as  a  fly  repellent,  the 
wagons  might  be  sprayed  with  a  cresol  solution,  pine  oil  disinfectant,  solu- 
tion of  gas-house  waste,  or  kerosene  oil.  One  of  the  western  cities  on  the 
seacoast  claims  that  thoroughly  washing  the  wagons  with  sea  water  assists 
in  the  eUmination  of  fly  troubles  " 


COLLECTION  115 

Ordinances  have  been  enacted  in  a  number  of  cities,  as  in  MicJi- 
igan,  Illinois,  and  Utah,  regulating  the  collection  and  disposal  of  gar- 
bage. Recent  decisions  of  several  State  Supreme  Courts  have  held 
that  the' "  property  rights  of  individuals  in  garbage  are  subordinate 
to  the  general  good,  and  that  garbage  disposal  is  subject  to  control 
by  municipalities  under  the  police  power." 

The  City  of  Grand  Rapids  notified  the  proprietors  of  hotels  and 
restaurants  to  discontinue  the  conveyance  and  disposal  of  their  gar- 
bage to  farms  where  it  was  fed  to  hogs  and  poultry,  as  it  was  in  vio- 
lation of  a  city  ordinance.     The  Court  has  sustained  the  City. 

The  ordinance  certainly  was  intended  to  be  limited,  in  justice 
and  for  the  common  benefit,  onlj^  in  reference  to  the  conveyance  of 
garbage  through  the  streets  when  it  had  become  old  enough  to  be 
oflfensive,  and  therefore  to  affect  the  public,  in  which  case  it  should 
be  controlled  by  the  City  and  not  by  individuals.  There  could  not  be 
any  reason  for  prohibiting  the  carting  through  the  streets  of  garbage 
before  decomposition  had  set  in,  i.e.,  only  one  or  two  days  old,  any 
more  than  prohibiting  butcher  or  vegetable  wagons  from  delivering 
goods. 

The  underlying  object  of  such  ordinances  can  only  be  a  prevention 
of  nuisance.  This  can  always  be  accomplished  by  a  sufficiently 
frequent  collection  of  garbage  and  by  keeping  wagons  and  receptacles 
at  all  times  thoroughly  clean  and  covered. 

2.  Time  Required  for  One  Collection. — The  time  required  to 
collect  the  refuse  materials  from  each  point  of  origin  has  also  an 
important  bearing  on  the  economical  arrangement  of  the  collection 
service.  It  controls  the  number  of  collections  which  can  be  made 
during  the  working  day,  and  thus  determines  the  quantity  of  refuse 
which  can  be  removed  by  each  wagon.  An  increase  in  the  time 
required  to  collect  from  each  house  will  increase  correspondingly  the 
number  of  wagons  required  to  serve  a  given  population. 

In  April,  1911,  a  very  complete  record  was  kept  of  the  work  done 
by  garbage  collectors  in  Milwaukee.  The  trips  of  twenty-one  col- 
lectors were  observed,  and  data  were  secured  showing  the  length 
of  time  spent  by  each  one  in  harnessing  his  horse,  going  to  the  first 
place  of  collection,  making  the  collections  required  to  secure  a  full 
load,  and  delivering  that  load  at  the  point  of  disposal.  The  records 
were  kept  for  each  wagon  making  one  trip.  The  wagons  ordinarily 
made  two  and  sometimes  three  trips  per  day.  Each  had  a  capacity 
of  1.5  cu.  yd. 

The  city  is  divided  into  small  collection  districts,  their  size,  shape, 
and  location  being  arranged  so  that  the  length  of  haul  and  difficulty  of 
collection  will  allow  the  time  for  collecting  two  loads  to  approximate 


116     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

an  eight-hour  day.  The  observations  also  covered  districts  in  dif- 
ferent sections  of  the  city,  where  the  conditions  of  service  changed 
from  small  houses  to  hotels  and  apartments,  thus  affecting  the  num- 
ber of  places  entered.     These  data  are  summarized  in  Table  53, 


Table  53. — Collection  Data,  Milwaukee, 
Time  Studies  or  Collectors'  Work 


Number 

Number 

Time,  in 

Minutes,  peb  Trip 

Percentage 

Average 
time,  in 

of  blocks 

covered  on 

one  trip 

of  places 

entered  on 

one  trip 

Hauling 

Collect- 
ing 

Total 

of  total 
time  spent 
collecting 

minutes,  to 

collect  from 

one  place 

3 

58 

225 

80 

305 

39 

1.38 

5 

49 

167 

60 

227 

26 

1.22 

2 

32 

174 

75 

249 

30 

2.34 

2 

45 

60 

48 

108 

44 

1.07 

3 

39 

150 

70 

220 

32 

1.79 

4 

45 

88 

128 

216 

59 

2.85 

4 

24 

110 

115 

225    ^ 

51 

4.80 

8 

106 

100 

133 

233 

57 

1.25 

4 

38 

210 

106 

316 

34 

2.79 

2 

15 

100 

70 

170 

41 

4.67 

6 

8 

66 

55 

121 

45 

6.87 

4 

9 

36 

44 

80 

55 

4.90 

1 

6 

92 

32 

124 

26 

5.33 

3 

58 

119 

56 

175 

32 

0.97 

4 

15 

136 

64 

200 

32 

12.80 

6 

18 

75 

105 

180 

58 

5.85 

5 

90 

115 

185 

300 

62 

2.06 

3 

59 

89 

155 

244 

64 

2.63 

1 

26 

151 

115 

266 

43 

4.43 

5 

13 

120 

85 

205 

41 

6.54 

6 

45 

50 

100 

150 

67 

2.22 

6 
Averages . 

32 

160 

90 

250 

36 

2.81 

38 

118 

90 

207 

44 

3.71 

The  most  striking  features  of  this  table  are  the  number  of  places 
which  one  collector  can  visit  in  one  day  and  the  length  of  time  required 
at  each  house.  It  was  found  that,  on  the  average,  one  collector  could 
visit  about  100  houses  in  an  eight-hour  day,  and  that  the  time  required 
at  each  house  was  slightly  more  than  two  minutes.  The  individual 
results,  however,  are  quite  variable. 


COLLECTION 


117 


The  importance  of  such  information  is  emphasized  by  a  state- 
ment of  Arthur  May,  Cleansing  .Superintendent,  London,  as  follows: 

"It  has  been  generally  accepted  that,  with  a  chute  [dump]  within  two  miles 
of  the  Dusting  District,  a  one-horse  van  with  a  capacity  of  4  cu.  yd.  would, 
under  normal  conditions,  make  from  240  to  250  calls  and  collections  each  day 
of  ten  hours  *  *  *  in  districts  where  dust-pans  [house  cans]  are  placed  on 
the  edge  of  the  curb  *  *  *  it  is  quite  possible  to  make  as  many  as  500  col- 
lections in  one  day." 

The  London  collector,  therefore,  is  able  to  visit  from  two  to 
five  times  as  many  houses  per  day  as  the  Milwaukee  collector.  In 
other  words,  the  work  in  London  can  be  done  by  from  one-half  to 
one-third  as  many  men  per  unit  place  of  production  of  refuse.  Mr. 
May  states  further  that 

"A  large  city  like  Manchester  has  over  7,000,000  weekly  collections  every 
year,  and  one  minute's  delay  in  each  collection  amounts  in  the  year  to  a  loss 
of  116,666  working  hours  for  a  horse  and  cart  and  one  or  two  men." 

It  is  chiefly  the  location  of  the  can  which  determines  the  speed 
with  which  collectors  can  serve  each  house.  Where  the  can  is  placed  at 
the  curb  for  the  coUedtor,  as  in  London,  Paris,  Hamburg,  and  other 
European  cities,  it  requires  but  a  fraction  of  a  minute  to  empty  it 
into  the  wagon.  The  same  operation  in  Milwaukee  required  about 
two  minutes. 

The  type  of  receptable  and  the  loading  height  of  the  wagon  also 
affect  the  time  of  each  collection. 

Since  these  investigations  were  made  in  Milwaukee,  similar  obser- 
vations have  been  made  in  Evanston  by  Mr.  C.  C.  Saner,  and  in 
Chicago,  Louisville,  and  elsewhere  by  Greeley.  The  results  of  these 
observations  are  given  in  Table  54.     The  capacity  of  the  wagons  used 

Table  54. — Collection  Data  from  Sundry  Cities. 
Summary  of  Time  Studies  for  Collection  per  House 


City 

Number 

of 
observa- 
tions 

Average 
time  per 

collection, 
in 

minutes  * 

Average 
number 
of  houses 

per 
working 

day 

Usual 
location 

of 
receptacle 

Authority 

Louisville,  Ky 

Staten  Island,  N.  Y. . 

Evanston,  111 

Lake  Forest,  111 

7 
2 
9 
9 

0.37 

0.91 

1.21 

10.00 

225 
79 

Curb 

Back  door 
Back  door 
Back  door 

Greeley 
Fetherston 
Saner 
Greeley 

*  Time  of  hauling  and  dumping  not  included. 


118     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

in  Evanston  was  1.5  cu.  yd  and  in  Chicago  5.0  cu.  yd.  In  these  two 
cities  the  time  for  one  collection  is  less  than  in  Milwaukee.  Evanston 
is  a  residential  suburb  of  Chicago,  and  Chicago  has  a  much  greater 
density  of  population.  These  factors  had  some  effect  in  reducing  the 
time  of  collection. 

Time  studies  of  garbage  collection,  made  in  Lake  Forest,  111.,  by 
Greeley,  indicated  an  average  time  per  collection  of  ten  minutes. 
Lake  Forest  is  a  residential  community  in  which  the  houses  are  on 
large  lots.  The  observations  were  made  at  nine  houses,  the  average 
distance  from  the  street  to  the  house  being  630  ft. 

Mr.  C.  G.  Alfs,  contractor  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  refuse 
at  Decatur,  111.  (population  40,000),  states  that  with  a  5-mile  haul  to 
a  dump,  one  4-yd.  wagon  collecting  mixed  refuse  can  serve  100  houses 
in  a  nine-hour  day.  With  delivery  to  a  refuse  incinerator,  which  is 
near  the  center  of  the  city,  each  wagon  serves  from  200  to  250  houses 
per  working  day. 

The  investigations  in  Chicago  were  planned  to  indicate  the  varia- 
tion in  the  time  required  for  one  collection  of  different  kinds  of  refuse. 
Observations  were  made  for  mixed  refuse,  garbage,  and  for  ashes  and 
rubbish  mixed.     Table  55  gives  the  detailed  results  of  these  studies. 

Table  55. — Collection  Data,  Chicago. 
Time  Studies  of  Collectors'  Work 


Material 

Interval 
since  last 
collection, 

in  days 

Number 

of  places 

entered  on 

one  trip 

Time 
to  collect 
one  load, 

in 
minutes 

Average 

time  to 

collect  from 

one   place, 

in  minutes 

Mixed  refuse 

7 
8 

63 
52 

115 
100 

1.8 
1.9 

4 

51 

80 

1.6 

Garbage 

2 

390 

300 

0.8 

3 

535 

345 

0.6 

3 

745 

345 

0.5 

Rubbish  and  ashes 

2 

25 

65 

2.6 

8 

112 

135 

1.2 

3 

71 

100 

1.4 

7 

24 

85 

3.5 

Table   56  gives  the  results  of  time  studies  made  in  Washington, 
D.  C. 


COLLECTION 


119 


Table    56. — Collection    Data,    Washington,    D. 
Time   Studies  of  Collectors'  Work 


Material 

No. 
of 
obser- 
vations 

Number 

of 

places 

entered  on 

one  trip 

Time,  in  Minutes, 
PER  Trip 

Percentage 

of  total 
time  spent 
collecting 

Average 
time,  in 

minutes,  to 
collect  from 

one  place  * 

Collect- 
ing 

Hauling 

Total 

Garbage . . 
Ashes .... 
Rubbish . . 

60 
28 
44 

289 
160 
160 

124 

72 

125 

114 

73 
153 

238 
145 

278 

52.0 
49.5 
45.2 

0.43 
0.91 

1.74 

*  Time  of  hauling  and  dumping  not  included. 

With  more  of  such  information  it  would  be  possible  to  get  a  fair 
figure  for  man-hour  work  and  to  make  a  proper  estimate  of  the  rela- 
tive costs  of  collecting  mixed  and  separated  refuse.  Similar  investi- 
gations should  be  made  more  frequently  along  these  lines. 

3.  Time  of  Collection. — The  working  time  of  a  collector  may  be 
divided  into  the  productive  time,  i.e.,  the  time  actually  spent  in  col- 
lecting and  emptying  the  house  cans  into  the  wagons,  and  the  unpro- 
ductive time,  i.e.,  the  time  spent  in  driving  the  loaded  wagon  from 
the  last  point  of  collection  to  the  point  of  transfer  or  final  disposal. 
This  division  separates  the  time  of  collecting  and  the  time  of  deliv- 
ering the  load. 

The  unproductive  time  should  be  kept  as  short  as  possible.  To 
do  this  under  ordinary  conditions  requires  that  the  wagon  be  as  large 
as  possible,  so  that  it  can  make  the  least  number  of  trips  to  the  point 
of  unloading.  If  it  were  possible  to  handle  a  wagon  of  so  large  a 
capacity  that  the  time  required  to  load  it  would  leave  time  to  make 
only  one  trip  per  day,  then  the  most  economical  use  of  the  wagon 
would  result.  Local  conditions,  however,  generally  do  not  permit 
this.  In  Chicago,  for  instance,  it  is  found  that  there  are  districts 
where  a  working  day  is  too  short  to  fill  completely  a  4-yd.  wagon  with 
garbage  for  a  single  trip  to  the  disposal  works  or  transfer  station. 
Obviously,  therefore,  in  a  large  city,  wagons  of  different  sizes  will  be 
required  to  meet  most  economically  the  variations  in  the  different 
districts.  New  York  City  has  been  using  a  5-ton  auto-truck,  Fig.  14, 
for  hauling  garbage  and  ashes,  as  the  hauls  are  much  shorter  than  in 
Chicago.  The  standard  New  York  garbage  cart,  however,  with  side- 
boards, Fig.  15,  holds  only  2.0  cu.  yd.,  and  the  ash  wagon  3.0  cu.  yd. 
The  large  wagon,  to  shorten  the  unproductive  time,  therefore,  is  a 
striking  departure  from  past  practice.  Mr.  E.  D.  Very,  of  New  York, 
speaks  enthusiastically  of  the  expected  economies  therefrom. 


120    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Fig.  14.— Five-ton  Mack  Truck,  New  York  City. 


Fig.  15. — Standard  New  York  Garbage  Cart 


COLLECTION  121 

The  percentage  of  the  total  working  time  of  a  collector  which  is 
used  productively  has  been  found  to  be: 

For  Chicago 50.0% 

"    Milwaukee 45.0% 

"    Evanston 86.0% 

"    Washington 45.2% 

"    Louisville 27.0% 

4.  Length  of  Haul. — If  all  refuse  materials  from  a  given  area  are 
taken  to  one  point  of  disposal,  the  length  of  haul  will  be  about  double 
that  which  would  be  required  if  two  points  of  disposal  were  available 
in  the  same  area.  This  fact  frequently  indicates  the  most  economical 
plan  of  collection,  and  shows  the  important  relation  between  coUectiop 
and  method  of  disposal. 

For  example:  In  Milwaukee  the  most  available  site  for  a  reduction 
plant  was  at  Mequon,  about  7  miles  north  of  the  city.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  very  central  location  was  available  for  an  incinerator,  with 
suitable  locations  convenient  for  future  plants.  The  cost  analyses 
showed  that  the  incineration  of  mixed  refuse  at  a  central  incinerator 
would  be  cheaper  than  the  reduction  of  the  garbage,  the  burning  of 
rubbish,  and  the  dumping  of  ashes.  The  balance  in  favor  of  the  incin- 
erator method  of  final  disposal  of  all  refuse  was  due  to  the  shorter 
average  haul.  In  Chicago,  on  the  other  hand,  a  very  central  location 
was  available  for  reduction  works,  and  this  method  of  disposal,  with 
separate  collection,  proved  to  be  cheaper  than  burning  mixed  refuse, 
even  at  a  number  of  plants  at  various  locations  throughout  the  city. 

In  a  city  of  100,000  people,  producing  50  tons  of  garbage  per  day, 
a  change  in  the  length  of  haul  sufficient  to  increase  the  cost  of  collec- 
tion 20  cents  per  ton  is  equivalent  to  a  capital  sum  of  about  $60,000. 
This  sum  will  generally  be  more  than  the  difference  between  the 
greater  cost  of  building  two  smaller  disposal  stations  and  the  smaller 
cost  of  one  larger  plant. 

In  cities  covering  large  areas,  the  length  of  team  haul  must  be 
reduced  by  having  transfer  stations  from  which  the  refuse  can  be 
taken  by  train,  barge,  motor  truck,  or  trolley  to  the  point  of  final 
disposal.     This  subject  is  discussed  fully  in  Chapter  IV. 

5.  Speed  Rate. — The  cost  of  team  haul  will  vary  with  the  speed 
of  travel  and  the  tonnage  hauled.  Mr.  George  A.  Zinn,  in  a  paper  * 
entitled  "  Chicago's  Waterways  and  their  Relation  to  Transporta- 
tion," gives  the  price  of  team  haul  as  50  cents  per  ton-mile.  This 
subject  was  investigated  carefully  in  Chicago  during  1913,  resulting 
in  an  allowance  of  3  miles  per  hour  for  the  average  speed  of  travel. 

♦Presented  before  the  Western  Society  of  Engineers  in  April,  1912, 


122     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

In  Milwaukee,  during  the  summer  of  1911,  this  was  found  to  average 
3.6  miles  per  hour.  It  was  also  ascertained  in  Chicago  that  teams 
hauling  ice  could  make  an  average  rate  of  3.0  miles  per  hour  loaded, 
and  the  drivers  were  instructed  not  to  exceed  this  rate  greatly  when 
their  wagons  were  empty.  The  actual  rate  of  travel  of  garbage,  ash, 
and  rubbish  wagons  in  Chicago  was  found  by  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission to  be  2.7  miles  per  hour.  A  speed  of  3.0  miles  per  hour,  how- 
ever, should  be  secured  under  reasonably  favorable  conditions  of 
streets  and  of  operation. 

For  a  standard  rate  of  travel,  the  cost  of  team  haul  per  ton-mile 
will  vary  with  the  rate  of  wages  paid  the  driver  for  his  time  and  team, 
and  can  easily  be  computed  for  the  various  weights  of  refuse  hauled. 

In  Chicago,  the  weight  of  the  average  load  of  garbage  hauled  is 
2.0  tons,  and  of  ashes  and  rubbish  2.5  tons.  Where  rubbish  is  col- 
lected separately,  the  tonnage  that  can  be  handled  in  one  wagon  is 
much  smaller  but  the  yardage  is  greater.  In  Columbus,  and  in  Buf- 
falo, 8-yd.  wagons  have  been  used  successfully  for  hauling  rubbish. 
The  net  weight  of  rubbish  hauled  in  such  a  wagon  averages  0.8  ton. 
The  cost  of  haul  per  ton-mile  for  rubbish,  therefore,  is  much  larger 
than  for  garbage  and  ashes.  Under  these  conditions,  and  with  wages 
at  75  cents  per  hour  the  unit  costs  of  team  haul  may  be  averaged  as 
follows : 

Cost  of  Team  Haul 
per  Ton-mile. 
(Round  Trip) 

Garbage $0.25 

Ashes 0.20 

Rubbish 0.62 

Mixed  refuse 0 ,  20 

Of  course,  these  unit  figures  require  adjustment  to  local  conditions 
after  sufficient  investigation.  The  cost  of  hauling  a  5-ton  load  by 
motor  truck  is  shown  in  Chapter  V  to  be  about  $0.16  per  ton-mile 
(round  trip). 

The  cost  of  collecting  and  handling  mixed  refuse  in  Toronto  is 
approximately  $1.35  per  ton-mile. 

6.  Quantity  per  House. — The  cost  of  collection  depends  also  on 
the  quantity  of  refuse  produced  per  capita,  or  per  house,  and,  there- 
fore, on  the  time  required  to  get  a  full  load.  For  a  given  frequency  of 
collection,  the  collector  will  find  a  smaller  accumulation  in  the  house 
can  when  smaller  quantities  are  produced  per  capita,  and  the  time 
of  getting  a  load  will  be  correspondingly  lengthened.  When  larger 
quantities  are  collected  at  each  house,  a  wagon  of  given  size  will  be 
more  quickly  filled,  and  will  not  serve  as  many  houses  on  one  trip. 


COLLECTION  123 

This  condition  is  particularly  evident  when  making  comparisons 
of  refuse  collection  in  European  and  American  cities.  For  European 
conditions,  with  a  smaller  per  capita  production,  the  mixed  refuse  of 
100,000  people  can  be  removed  by  about  15  wagons.  In  American 
cities,  about  30  wagons  are  required  for  a  similar  service.  These 
figures  are  only  approximate,  yet  they  show  that  the  quantity  of 
refuse  produced  per  inhabitant  and  per  house  must  be  considered  in 
an  analysis  of  the  collection  work. 

7.  Computations  for  Collection  Service. — The  relative  effect  of 
the  foregoing  details  on  the  collection  service  can  be  seen  best  by 
representing  them  in  algebraic  form.  The  following  letters  represent 
the  various  factors  entering  into  the  computations: 

W  =  Number  of  collection  wagons; 
F  =  Capacity  of  one  wagon,  in  cubic  feet; 
F  =  Interval  between  collections,  in  days; 
T  =Time  required  to  collect  from  one  house,  expressed  as  parts  of  an 

hour; 
C  =  The  percentage  of  working  time  spent  by  the  collectors  in  the 

actual  time  of  collecting,  as  distinguished  from  hauling  to  and 

from  the  point  of  disposal; 
D  =  Length  of  working  day,  in  hours; 

S  =  Number  of  trips  to  point  of  disposal  per  wagon  per  day; 
P  =  Total  population  served ; 
N  =  Average  number  of  people  per  house; 
R  =  Daily  quantity  of  refuse  per  capita,  in  cubic  feet; 
g  =  Daily  quantity  of  garbage  per  capita,  in  cubic  feet; 
a  =  Daily  quantity  of  ashes  per  capita,  in  cubic  feet; 
r  =  Daily  quantity  of  rubbish  per  capita,  in  cubic  feet. 
These  factors  are  embodied  in  the  following  expressions: 

„     DXC     ^      ^,     ^      1 

S=  xFxNxRx—,         ....     (a) 

W=^^ (b) 

sxv 

Equation  (a)  shows  the  number  of  trips  to  the  point  of  disposal,  or 
transfer,  for  each  collection  wagon  per  day,  in  terms  of  the  productive 
working  time,  the  time  to  collect  from  one  house,  the  frequency  of 
collections,  the  per  capita  production  of  refuse,  and  the  capacity  of 
each  wagon.  It  shows  that  the  number  of  trips  per  day  which  can  be 
made  will  increase  with  the  productive  working  time  and  the  per 
capita  production  of  refuse,  but  will  decrease  as  the  time  required 
to  visit  one  house  increases  and  the  size  of  the  wagons  becomes  larger. 


124     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Equation  (h)  shows  the  total  number  of  wagons  required,  in  terms 
of  the  total  quantity  of  refuse  produced  for  a  given  population,  the 
number  of  trips  per  wagon  per  day,  as  computed  from  Equation  (a), 
and  the  capacity  of  each  wagon.  The  number  of  wagons  required  will 
be  greater  for  greater  quantities  of  refuse,  and  will  be  less  for  larger 
wagons  making  the  same  number  of  trips  per  day  to  the  point  of  dis- 
posal. These  two  expressions  serve  to  bring  out  the  relative  impor- 
tance of  the  various  factors  in  the  collection  service.  They  should  not 
necessarily  be  considered  as  formulae  giving  definite  results.  Being 
purely  analytical,  they  should  serve  merely  as  a  general  guide  in 
solving  problems. 

This  method  of  computation  for  the  arrangement  of  refuse  collec- 
tion was  used  in  Chicago  in  the  report  of  1914  by  Osborn,  Fetherston, 
and  Greeley.  The  following  is  a  typical  computation  for  the  25th 
Ward  of  that  city; 

Computation  for  Number  of  Teams  in  Ward  25,  Chicago 

General  Data. 

Collection  Frequency: 

Ashes  and  Rubbish — Winter — twice  a  week. 
Summer — once  a  week. 
Garbage — Winter  and  Summer— three  times  a  week. 
Mixed  Refuse — Winter  and  Summer — twice  a  week. 

Capacity  of  Wagons : 

Garbage,  4.0  cu.  ya.  =  108  cu.  ft. 

Ashes  and  Rubbish,  5.0  cu.  yd.  =  135  cu.  ft. 
Mixed  Refuse,  5 . 0  cu.  yd.  =  135  cu.  ft. 

Time  for  1  Collection  =  7"  in  Equation  (a): 
Garbage,  1  minute. 

Ashes  and  Rubbish,  2  minutes. 
Mixed  refuse,  2.5  minutes. 

Production,  in  cubic  feet  per  1000  population  per  day: 

Winter 

Garbage 10. 

Ashes  and  Rubbish.  ...     95. 
Mixed  Refuse 

Number  of  people  per  collection  =  10. 

Length  of  working  day  =  8  hours. 

Rate  of  travel  in  haul  =  3.0  nules  per  hour. 

Special  data  for  Ward  25: 

Length  of  average  haul  =  4  nules. 


Summer 

Average 

23 

15 

57 

76 

, , 

100 

COLLECTION  125 

The  method  of  computation  is  aw  follows: 

I.  Trips  per  day 

_  (Length  of  working  day,  in  minutes  — time  spent  hauling,  in  minutes) 
.(Time  for  1  collection,  in  minutes) 
(Quantity  per  collection) 
(Capacity  of  wagon) 

(Quantity  per  capita)  X  100,000 


II.  No.  of  Wagons  per  100,000: 


(Trips  per  day)  X  (capacity  of  wagon)* 

Substituting  in  Equations  (a)  and  {h) : 
Garbage, 
Summer : 

(8X60-^X4X2x|i)      ^ 
S  = ix  — X10X2Xj^  =  1.2Uripsperd.y, 

23 
J^^X  100,000 

W=  ^ino    =17.5  wagons  per  100,000  population, 

1 . Zl X lOo 

Winter: 

„     (480-1605)       10        „  1 

^=         1.0        X^^Xl0X2X-=0.69tripperday, 

10 
X  100.000 

TTT  1000 

W=       ^nv^inc     =13-4  wagons  per  100,000  population. 
(J .  by  X  lOo 

Average : 

„     (480 -160*?)       15  1 

^-^1, X—X10X2X-=0.92  trip  per  day, 

i=^X100,000 

W=       nox^mo    =151  wagons  per  100,000  population. 
U .  vZ X  IDs 

Ashes  and  Rubbish, 

Summer : 

„     (480-1605)       57  1 

'S  =  -^;-^3^X^XlOX6X-  =  2.01  trips  per  day, 

57 
— —  X100,000 
TT7     1000 
^v=-— — — — —  =  21.0  wagons  per  100,000  population. 

Jd .  Ui  y\  loo 


126     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Winter : 

„     (480-1605)       95       _  T       ,   oo     • 

^=        2.0        X^XlOX3X-  =  1.88tnpsperday, 


95 
X  100,000 

W  = =  37  A  wagons  per  100,000  population. 

1.88X135  B        H 


Average : 

(480-1605)       76         „     .       1       ,  ^.  .  . 
5  =  — ^^—X—X10X4X- =  1.94  tnps  per  day, 


76 
X  100,000 

W  = =  29.0  wagons  per  100,000  population. 

1 .  y4  /\  xoo 


Mixed  Refuse, 
Average : 

(480-160/S)      100      ,„     „       1       ,  „,  ,  . 

S=- — — ^X--XlOX3X—  =  1.76  trips  per  day, 

2 . 5  1000  loo 

^X  100,000 

W  = =  42.2  wagons  per  100,000  population. 

1.76X135 

Summary :  Wagons  per  1 00, 000  population : 

Winter  Summer  Average 

Garbage 13.4  17.5  15.1 

Ashes  and  Rubbish 37.4  21.0  29.0 

Mixed ....  42.2 

The  foregoing  computations  were  simplified  by  using  the  diagrams, 
Figs.  16,  17,  and  18.  The  method  of  analysis  described  can  be 
extended  and  used  in  greater  detail,  as  was  done  by  Hering  and  Gregory 
for  Dayton,  Ohio.  Fig.  19  is  a  diagram  used  in  garbage  collection 
computations. 

Table  57  shows  the  actual  number  of  wagons,  per  100,000  popula- 
tion used  in  the  various  wards  in  Chicago  for  1912.  The  number 
required  under  assumed  conditions  of  better  service  is  shown  in 
Table  58.  The  application  of  this  method  of  computation  to  ascertain 
the  service  in  European  and  American  cities  for  different  classes  of 
refuse  materials  is  shown  in  Table  59. 


COLLECTION 


127 


F.— EQUIPMENT 

In  the  foregoing  analysis,  the  conditions  affecting  the  choice  of  the 
wagons  for  the  collection  service  were  not  considered.  Some  of  the 
more  important  requirements,  which  not  only  affect  the  cost  of  the 
collection  but  also  the  sanitary  efficiency,  are  as  follows: 

1.  Size  of  Wagons. — Theoretically,  as  just  stated,  a  refuse  wagon 

should  be  of  such  a  size  that  the  time  required  to  fill  it  leaves  just 

sufficient  time  in  one  working  day  for  one  trip  to  the  point  of  disposal. 

0 

10 

20 
30 

40 

m 

•o    50 

CO 

0) 

g    60 
"•3 

ID 

•3    90 

a 

^  100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

160 

0       2       4        6       8       10      12      14      16      1&     20      22      24     26      28      30      32      34 
Number  of  Wagons 

Fig.  16. — Diagram  for  Estimating  Number  of  Wagons  Required  to  Collect 

Garbage. 


\ 

N 

^ 

^ 

^ 

N 

i^ 

^ 

^. 

\N^ 

^ 

i 

^. 

\ 

^"^ 

^ 

i 

k 

\^ 

^^^ 

^ 

^ 

k 

\ 

k\^ 

K^ 

^ 

^ 

\ 

V 

\V 

\N 

^ 

^ 

\ 

\ 

v 

^1^ 

^^ 

w 

^ 

o\i 

'*K' 

^^ 

.^^ 

\7\ 

^^ 

^ 

^ 

\\ 

V 

^ 

S: 

A 

^^ 

n\ 

\ 

V 

A 

N 

\> 

s\ 

S: 

n\ 

s. 

s 

\\ 

A 

\ 

\^ 

s\ 

N 

\ 

A 

\, 

\ 

\ 

\^ 

x\ 

s\ 

\ 

\ 

\' 

\^ 

\ 

This  condition  reduces  the  unproductive  time.  Further,  a  large  wagon 
generally  requires  for  its  operation  a  more  intelligent  collector,  and 
this  promotes  the  essential  co-operation  between  the  householder  and 
the  collection  department. 

Practically,  the  best  wagon  size  for  each  locality  can  be  deter- 
mined only  after  a  consideration  of  a  number  of  conditions.  There 
is  the  area  and  the  population  of  a  district;    the  relative  time  spent 


128     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


0 
10 

y 

J 

20 
30 
40 

s 

\\ 

\\^ 

w 

^ 

^. 

AN 

\\ 

\\ 

^ 

N 

50 
m 

1    60 

M 

3 

9    70 
H 

\ 

\N 

\N 

\\ 

^ 

N 

\^ 

A 

\\ 

\ 

^^ 

^ 

\ 

\ 

\\ 

l\ 

\^ 

nX\^ 

N^ 

N 

.S    80 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\\ 

A 

\ 

\; 

\^ 

s> 

\^ 

.2    90 
a 
•3  100 

O 

^  110 
120 

1 

i\ 

\ 

■^ 

:Ae 

H^u 

\li 

s,    \ 

N^ 

V 

\ 

'■ 

11 

yl 

\'* 

\^ 

[;■> 

N^ 

N-f 

^^ 

^\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

> 

^ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

s 

\, 

K 

130 

\ 

— ) 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\, 

\ 

140 
ir.n 

I 

\ 

\     ' 

K 

\ 

\ 

k — 

N 

\ 

\ 

s 

\ 

\ 

\. 

0       5       10      15      20      25     30      35      40      45      50      55      60     65      70      75     80      85     90 
Number  of  'Wagons 

Fig.  17.— Diagram  for  Estimating  Number  of  Wagons  Required  to  Collect 
Ashes  and  Rubbish. 


0 

\l 

w 

10 
20 

^>. 

>A 

^ 

30 

w 

n\^ 

?4 

40 

V 

k\ 

\N 

^ 

:>^ 

^ 

X 

50 

\ 

\ 

\^ 

N 

\^ 

^ 

$^ 

^ 

>s. 

•g     bO 

CO 

V 

v\ 

,\ 

\ 

\ 

v\ 

:S 

^ 

\, 

a     70 
o 

H     80 

c 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

^^ 

\> 

\S 

^ 

^ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

N.  ^ 

K^ 

\1 

\ 

K 

\^ 

S 

\J 

"1    90 
c 
■S  100 

(3 

1  110 

o 

0* 

\ 

\ 

\ 

.vef^ 

ge  I 

s 

:aul. 

NMil 

sK. 

\ 

N 

V 

N 

N,. 

\ 

K 

1 '} 

2 

v' ' 

'\ 

'K 

N 

k 

i\ 

n| 

^ 

s 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

s 

N, 

\ 

\ 

s. 

|\ 

N 

s 

\ 

120 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

s. 

\ 

s 

\, 

\ 

s 

\, 

\ 

\ 

X 

130 
140 
150 

\ 

\ 

\ 

V 

\ 

\ 

\ 

s. 

\ 

N, 

\ 

N 

\ 

N 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

s 

\ 

s 

\ 

N 

_ 

m    1 

1^  ^ 

n    ' 

>K      • 

n    '. 

^      A 

n     i 

R     c 

n    ! 

i5     f 

rf)     6 

5     •■ 

0   •■ 

rs    ? 

If)  i 

5     f 

K)     £ 

5    1 

Number  of  Wagons 

Fig.  18. — Diagram  for  Estimating  Number  of  Wagons  Required  to  Collect 

Mixed  Refuse. 


COLLECTION 


129 


Total  Haul,  In  Mllos 


100 

o 

o« 

■=> 

Ol 

<= 

CT 

<=> 

V 

o 

en 

o 

Jf 

o 

v\ 

o 

J1 

o 

m 

O 

cw      o 

^ 

\\ 

\^ 

s 

\ 

1 

^ 

/ 

/ 

■ZMJU 

120 

\ 

'\^ 

>v 

\\ 

l\ 

^ 

^ 

'' 

^ 

^ 

N^ 

>>^ 

'^ 

1 
1 

\ 

^ 

/ 

140 

_lS. 

■^ 

i^' 

w 

s\ 

\ 

*5X 

^ 

/ 

/ 

2300 

\ 

^ 

\ 

\ 

^i. 

^ 

/ 

;/i 

^ 

/ 

160 

^ 

^ 

.. 

p? 

\\ 

ir-- 

\^ 

^'^^ 

/ 

^ 

/" 

2300 

^- 

\ 

^ 

\ 

J 

^ 

/ 

/ 

y 

180 

<^ 

,\ 

\ 

■^ 

h 

^ 

^ 

1 

/. 

^ 

2100 

^ 

^ 

i' 

I' 

,y 

y^- 

§ 

K 

^ 

\l 

y 

/^ 

200 

]\sB 

te 

=^,- 

^> 

\ 

\ 

1^ 

/ 

y 

-' 

2000 

^ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

y 

/ 

220 

^ 

-^•^ 

\  \ 

V 

K 

\  , 

y 

f 

/ 

1900 

</ 

^ 

> 

-^ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

240 

^ 

x^ 

^'' 

^ 

Em\ 

\ 

\l 

K 

\ 

/ 

/^ 

f 

1800 

^ 

^. 

1 
1 

\ 

\ 

\ 

^ 

/ 

\ 

260 

^ 

<: 

1 
1 

^ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

_^ 

^ 

A^ 

^ 

\ 

y 

1700 

280 

y' 

/I 

1 

/ 

X 

\ 

s 

1000 

y 

x: 

1 
1 

/ 

/ 

k\ 

V 

^ 

\ 

/ 

'inn 

^ 

/.. 

<:^<^ 

\; 

\j 

/  \ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

1500 

y 

y 

("1 

\ 

A 

\ 

/ 

\ 

320 

^ 

y 

\ 

\ 

^ 

\ 

m 

<^  ^ 

\  . 

y 

^ 

\, 

\ 

340 

V 

-'z 

_/.' 

4V-- 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/l 

/I 

/ 

i' 

*" 

/•^ 

\ 

\ 

\J 

\ 

s, 

\ 

1300 

3fin 

/ 

/ 

/   i 
/-   1 

// 

^/ 

A 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

1200 

/ 

/ 

/ 

1 
1 

/ 

m 

\ 

\ 

\ 

i8n 

.  / 

y 

/ 

/ 

1 
1    / 

'/ 

ZP 

\ 

\ 

\ 

UOO 

/ 

/ 

/ 

V/ 

'/^ 

, 

\J 

S 

\^ 

4nn 

/ 

^/ 

B 
P 

-^ 

\, 

\ 

1000 

J 

/ 

/ 

/ 

in                    H 

w 

A 

420 

/ 

/ 

// 

/ 

3ARBAGE  COLLECTION 
Wagon  District  Chart 
a.te  ol  Eoul  =  3  Miles  pex  Houi 
8-Hour  Working  Day 

bcarpple  of  Use  of  Chart 

Haul=  3..Q9  MJles 
2  Min.per  Collection 
Service  Factor  =80^ 
5.0.  Population  (ler  House 
ind  : 

CoIlectionB  per  Dayt=209 
Allowable  No.  Of  Hoase8=261 
Allowable  No.  of  People  =  1308 

\ 

1 

'/ 

// 

7 

A 

yoo 

/ 

/ 

/ 

// 

1 
1 

'/ 

A 

.^ 

/ 

1 
1 

800 

460 

/ 

^ 

1 

V 

1 

'4 

/ 

700 

480 

i 

1 

// 

/ 

U 

'/ 

1 

fiOO 

1  /A 

1 

A 

1        1 

_I 

500 

Allowable  Niuubez  of  Houses  for  CoUecUon  District 


130     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 
Table  57. — Collection  Equipment  and  Service  in  Chicago,  1912 


Ward 

Garbage 

Ashes  and  Rubbish 

Wagons 
per 

Number  of  collec- 
tions per  week 

Average 
number 

Wagons 
per 

Number  of  collec- 
tions per  week 

Average 
number 

100,000 
popu- 

of miles 
hauled 

100,000 
Popu- 

of miles 
hauled 

lation 

Winter 

Summer 

per  trip 

lation 

Winter 

Summer 

per  trip 

1 

6 

6 

6 

4.0 

33 

6 

6 

4 

2 

11 

6 

6 

2.7 

25 

1-2 

1 

4.2 

3 

9 

1 

3 

3.7 

25 

1 

1 

3.8 

4 

9 

2 

2 

2.0 

16 

2 

3 

3.5 

5 

6 

2 

3 

2.0 

11 

2 

2 

2.0 

6 

7 

2 

3 

5.5 

16 

2 

1 

4.5 

7 

7 

2-3 

3 

7.0 

20 

2 

2 

4.5 

8 

No 

separat 

ion 

12 

2 

3-2 

1.7 

9 

" 

1  < 

16 

1 

1 

2.0 

10 

6 

2 

6 

3.3 

15 

2-3 

3 

2.1 

11 

5 

6 

6 

3.0 

15 

6 

6 

2.0 

12 

4 

2-3 

3 

4.5 

8 

3 

2 

2.0 

13 

11 

2 

2 

4.1 

20 

1-2 

1 

3.5 

14 

8 

2 

2-3 

3.2 

20 

2 

2 

3.9 

15 

9 

2 

2 

3.5 

16 

1 

1 

3.3 

16 

6 

3-6 

3-6 

2.5 

14 

2-3 

2-3 

3.4 

17 

6 

6 

6 

1.0 

14 

1 

1 

4.5 

18 

10 

2-3 

6 

2.2 

18 

2 

3 

2.5 

19 

6 

2-3 

4 

2.5 

22 

2-3 

2 

2.5 

20 

9 

3 

4-5 

2.8 

20 

2-3 

3 

2.5 

21 

8 

3 

6 

1.6 

40 

3 

3 

4.8 

22 

7 

2 

3 

1.0 

24 

2 

3 

3.6 

23 

11 

2 

2 

2.6 

25 

1 

1 

3.1 

24 

10 

2 

2-3 

1.2 

20 

3 

2 

2.0 

25 

12 

2 

2 

4.5 

16 

2 

2 

3.5 

26 

9 

2 

2 

3.5 

18 

1 

1 

1.5 

27 

6 

1 

2 

3.3 

10 

3 

2-3 

2.0 

28 

10 

2 

2 

1.5 

16 

3 

2 

1.8 

29 

4 

2 

2 

4.0 

11 

2 

2 

1.5 

30 

8 

3 

3 

3.0 

16 

1-2 

1 

2.1 

31 

11 

1 

2 

3.5 

16 

1-2 

1 

3.5 

32 

9 

1-2 

2 

6.0 

18 

2 

2 

1.3 

33 

9 

2 

2 

5.0 

12 

1 

1 

4.0 

34 

8 

1-2 

2 

5.5 

14 

2-3 

2 

1.2 

35 

Aver .  . 

9 

1 

2 

5.0 

14 

1-2 

1 

4.0 

8 

18 

COLLECTION 


131 


in  collecting  and  in  delivering;  the  fact  that  a  6-ton  wagon  requires 
no  more  labor  than  a  4-ton  wagon,  and  less  time  is  used  for  the  larger 
wagon  at  each  end  of  its  journey.  Finally,  the  size  is  influenced  by 
the  kind  of  material  to  be  collected. 


Table  58. — Number  of  Collection  Wagons  Necessary 
TO  Give  Good  Service 

Chicago  Refuse  Disposal,  March,  1914 


District 


Number  of  Wagons  pek  100,000  Popula- 
tion Necessary  for  C'ollect.ng: 


Garbage        Ashes 


Rubbish 


Ashes  and 
rubbish 


Wentworth  and  39th  Sts . 
Kedzie  Ave.  and  Canal . . . 

State  and  64th  Sts 

Mayfair 

Western  and  64th  Sts .... 
Lumber  and  18th  Sts .... 
Austin  and  Claremont .  .  . 

Chicago  Ave 

Diversey  Blvd.  and  N.  Br 
Irving  Park  and  Rockwell 
Cortland  and  Crawford .  . 
Carroll  and  Crawford .... 
Stony  Island  and  95th .  .  . 
Reduction  Works 

Totals 

Averages 


12.5 
12.3 
12.5 
10.9 
12.6 
12.4 
12.3 
12.2 
12.3 
13.0 
13.0 
12.4 
12.3 
12.3 


173.0 


12.3 


18.5 
14.5 
18.0 
12.2 
18.2 
18.7 
17.3 
17.0 
17.4 
20.2 
21.0 
17.0 
17.8 
17.9 


11 

11 

12 

10 

12 

12 

12 

12.0 

10.5 

12.8 

12.9 

12.2 

12.1 

12.1 


245.7 


168.2 


17.5 


12.0 


21.6 
18.2 
17.8 
12.4 
17.5 
19.4 
18.0 
19.2 
18.2 
21.0 
22.1 
19.3 
21.3 
21.0 


267.0 


19.1 


An  advantageous  capacity  for  rubbish  wagons  appears  to  be  from 
8  to  10  cu.  yd.  In  large  cities  with  congested  populations,  the  best 
capacity  for  garbage  wagons  and  for  ash  wagons  is  about  4.5  cu.  yd., 
and  for  mixed  collection  about  5  to  6  cu.  yd.  In  smaller  and  residential 
towns,  the  working  day  is  not  long  enough  to  fill  large  wagons.  Inves- 
tigations in  Winnetka  and  Lake  Forest,  111.,  indicate  that  wagons  of 
1.5  cu.  yd.  capacity  are  large  enough.  In  large  cities,  on  account  of 
the  greater  variety  of  conditions,  the  equipment  should  include  wagons 
of  different  capacities. 

Fig.  20  shows  a  box  attached  to  an  ash  wagon;  it  is  of  sufficient 


132     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

size  to  hold  the  winter  production  of  garbage.     The  figure  shows  such 
a  wagon  as  used  in  Winnetka,  111. 

Table  59. — Examples  of  Application  of  the  Method  of  Computation 


ler- 

Number  of 

Actual 

Capacity 

Interval 

centage 

Assumec 

Number 

Wagons  per 

Popu- 
lation 

number 

of 

between 

of 

time 

of  trips 

100,000 

City 

of 
wagons 

wagons 
in 

collec- 
tions, 

assumec 
time 

requirec 
per 

per 
wagon 

Population 

served 

in 
service 

cubic 
yards 

in 
days 

spent  in 
collect- 
ing 

house, 
in  hours 

per 
day 

Actua 

Com- 
puted 

P 

W 

V 
27 

P' 

C 

T 

S 

America 

N  Cities — Separ.^^te  Col 

GARBAGE 

ijECTION 

Milwaukee. . 

375,000 

95 

1.5 

8.0 

0.45 

1 
20" 

2.14 

25 

23 

Columbus. .  . 

181,000 

20 

2.5 

4.5 

0.65 

40 

2.08 

11 

14 

Rochester.  .  . 

225,000 

30 

3.3 

3.0 

0.70 

80 

1.68 

13 

13 

ASHES   AND   RUBBISH 

Columbus. .  . 

181,000 

40 

3.5 

10.0 

0.50 

1 
"20" 

5.92 

22 

22 

Rochester. .  . 

225,000 

50 

4.0 

6.0 

0.60 

25 

4.67 

22 

24 

Euro 

PEAN  Cities — Mixed  Coi 

LECTION 

Hamburg.  .  . 

1,000,000 

90 

5.0 

2 

0.75 

1 
■"9  0 

2.41 

9           12 

Frankfort .  .  . 

920.000 

60 

2.5 

2.5 

0.65 

BO 

3.47 

14           17 

1 

Assumptions:  (See  page  123)  D  =8  hours;  R  =0.04  cu.  ft.  for  European  cities;  g  =0.02  cu. 
,t.for  American  cities;    a  =0.07  cu.  ft.  for  American  cities;  r  =0.05  cu.  ft.  for  American  cities. 


2.  Loading  Height. — The  loading  height  of  a  general  refuse  wagon 
should  be  such  that  the  workmen  can  easily  turn  the  contents  of  the 
can  into  it.  If  only  one  man  operates  the  wagon,  the  height  should 
be  not  more  than  6  ft.,  and  preferably  not  more  than  5  ft.,  from  the 
ground.  If  step-boards  are  placed  at  the  rear  and  on  the  sides  between 
the  wheels,  a  somewhat  higher  wagon  may  be  loaded  conveniently. 

The  trucks  for  the  removal  of  dead  horses,  etc.,  should  be  hung 
low,  in  order  to  avoid  an  excessive  lift. 

The  greatest  loading  height  of  a  rubbish  wagon  is  different.     As 


COLLECTION 


i3;i 


rubbish  is  a  lighter  and  cleaner  material,  the  collector  can  pile  it  to  a 
greater  height.     The  rubbish  wagons  in  Buffalo  and  New  York  are 


Fig.  20. — Ash  Wagon,  Winnetlca,  111.,  with  Garbage  Box  Attached. 


Fig.  21. — New  York  Rubbish  Wagon. 


loaded  to  a  height  of  more  than  8  ft.     1  ig.  21  shows  a  rubbish  wagon 
used  in  New  York  City. 

3.  Wheel  Base. — In  undeveloped  districts,  where  there  are  many 
rough  roads  and  narrow  alleys,  and  where  short  turns  are  required,  a 


134    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

long  wheel  base  is  objectionable.  An  attempt  to  increase  the  capacity 
of  a  wagon  tends  to  increase  the  wheel  base,  which  makes  it  clumsy. 
For  some  districts,  therefore,  it  will  be  desirable  to  have  special 
wagons,  made  with  short  wheel  bases,  or  to  use  two-wheeled  carts 
instead. 

4.  Covering. — For  several  reasons,  refuse  wagons  require  covering. 
Those  used  for  collecting  ashes  and  rubbish  or  mixed  refuse  should  be 
covered  in  order  to  prevent  dust  and  loose  papers  from  being  blown 
into  the  street.  Those  used  for  garbage  should  be  covered  so  as  to 
prevent  a  nuisance  to  both  sight  and  smell.  Fig.  22  shows  a  covered 
wagon  used  in  Newark. 


Fig.  22. — Covered  Wagon,  Newark,  N.  J. 

Fig.  23  shows  a  garbage  cart,  used  on  Staten  Island,  N.  Y.,  cov- 
ered with  canvas.  In  Cologne,  Germany,  a  wagon  for  mixed  refuse  is 
fitted  with  a  fixed  cover,  the  refuse  being  loaded  through  doors  hinged 
on  the  sides  and  at  the  rear.  Fig.  24  shows  a  garbage  wagon,  with 
hinged  covers,  used  in  Chicago.  Similar  vehicles  are  used  in  Cleve- 
land and  Milwaukee. 

A  large  garbage  wagon  is  used  in  Minneapolis;  it  is  covered  with 
canvas,  and  has  a  capacity  of  100  cu.  ft.,  the  body  being  removable  for 
transportation  by  train. 

The  hinged  type  of  cover  or  lid,  used  in  Chicago  and  elsewhere, 
often  becomes  bent  or  broken,  and  when  the  wagon  is  filled,  a  box, 
barrel,  or  other  large  piece  of  refuse,  often  prevents  the  lid  from 
closing.  Garbage  juices  tend  to  adhere  to  the  hinges,  and  thus  it  is 
difficult  to  keep  the  wagon  clean.  When  it  is  empty  and  is  passing 
over  rough  pavements,  the  noise  made  by  the  rattling  of  the  loose 


COLLECTION 


135 


^^VBIH| 

R^^^^ 

W^^mU 

^^SP 

>r- ~^ 

^ 

Fig.  23. — Garbage  Cart,  with  Canvas  Cover,  Staten  Island,  N.  Y. 


»■...'  p„.    rw  j.  «■»      t   I  III     ^1 


Fig.  24. — Garbage  Wagon,  with  Hinged  Covers,  Chicago,  111. 


136     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

covers  is  objectionable.  The  tight-fitting  covers  used  abroad  do 
away  with  these  troubles.  Fig.  25  shows  a  tj^pe  of  wagon  with  closed 
cover  used  in  Zurich,  Switzerland. 

Wagons  should  be  built  with  the  top  about  a  foot  above  the 
loading  height.  The  flat  canvas  cover  has  the  advantage  of  cheapness 
and  simpUcity,  but  it  becomes  soiled  and  torn,  and  cannot  be  kept  in 
place  during  the  loading.  An  arched  canvas  cover,  as  in  Newark, 
appears  to  be  preferable.  A  careful  man  will  keep  his  wagon  covered 
as  much  as  possible  while  collections  are  being  made. 

Newark  has  about  50  ash  wagons,  each  having  four  covers,  one 
sliding  over  the  other.  This  arrangement  makes  it  possible  to  leave 
not  more  than  one-quarter  of  the  top  temporarily  open  while  loading, 


Fig.  25. — Wagon  with  Closed  Cover,  Zurich,  Switzerland. 

and  greatly  prevents  dust  from  blowing  to  the  sidewalk.  A  wagon 
of  this  type  is  shown  in  Fig.  22. 

5.  Wagon  Bodies. — Wagon  bodies  should  preferably  be  made 
of  steel,  with  smooth  interior  surfaces  and  round  edges  and  corners, 
for  easy  washing.  Ribs  and  stiffeners  should  be  placed  on  the  outside. 
The  running  gears  are  of  wood  or  steel,  of  standard  construction. 
The  wagons  should  be  well  painted  on  the  outside,  and  kept  in  a  clean 
and  proper  condition. 

In  addition  to  the  wagon,  the  full  equipment  requires  a  small 
bucket,  a  shovel,  and  a  broom.  The  necessity  for  these  attachments 
depends  on  the  nature  of  the  house  treatment.  With  standard  cans, 
well  kept,  and  generally  used  by  the  householders,  this  wagon  equip- 
ment is  not  required.  In  cold  climates  a  pick  is  sometimes  needed 
to  break  frozen  garbage.  A  small  roller  truck  is  frequently  used  for 
carrying  heavy  cans. 


COLLECTION 


137 


Wagons  are  sometimes  divided  into  compartments,  each  cov- 
ered with  a  lid.  One  object  in  having  such  compartments  is  to 
expose  to  the  open  air  as  small  an  area  as  practicable;  another  is  to 
afford  opportunity  for  the  simultaneous  collection  of  different  kinds 
of  refuse,  which  are  to  be  kept  and  disposed  of  separately. 

Fig.  26  shows  a  motor-drawn  wagon,  with  compartments,  having  a 
capacity  of  25  cu.  yd.,  as  used  in  New  York  City. 

Some  bodies  have  movable  partitions,  as  in  Salt  Lake  City,  so 
that  the  garbage  may  be  kept  separated  from  the  other  refuse. 


Fig.  26. — Motor-drawn    Wagon,    with    Compartments,    New    York    City. 
Capacity,  25  Cubic  Yards. 


6.  Dumping. — The  loaded  wagon  must  be  dumped  with  as  little 
loss  of  time  as  possible.  The  method  of  dumping  depends  partly  on 
the  method  of  final  disposal.  Where  the  refuse  is  taken  to  dumps, 
bottom-dumping  wagons  are  most  serviceable.  They  are  suitable  for 
ashes,  rubbish,  or  mixed  refuse.  Bottom-dumping  wagons,  of  4  cu. 
yd.  capacity,  were  tried  in  Milwaukee  for  the  collection  of  garbage; 
but,  as  it  was  impossible  to  keep  them  water-tight  in  wet  summer 
weather,  they  were  objectionable.  The  distance  from  the  ground  to 
the  bottom  of  the  wagon  is  limited  to  a  certain  maximum,  sufficient 
to  give  clearance  to  the  bottom  when  opened;  this  limit  reduces  the 
available  capacity. 

The  rubbish  wagons  used  in  Winnetka,  111.,  and  Dallas,  Tex.,  are 
shown  in  Figs.  27  and  28.     The  Milwaukee  (Studebaker)  dumping 


138    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Fig.  27.— Rubbish  Wagon,  Winnetka,  111. 


Fig.  28.— Ten-yard  Rubbish  Wagon,  Dallas,  Tex. 


COLLECTION 


139 


wagon — capacity,  4  cu.  yd. — Is  shown  in  Fig.  29.  Fig.  30  shows 
another  Studebaker  horse-drawn  garbage  collection  wagon  with  metal 
covers  and  complete  dumping  apparatus. 


Fig.  29. — Garbage  Wagon,  Milwaukee,  Wis. 


JfiG.  30. — Two-yard,  Studebaker,  Garbage  Wagon  with  Metal  Covers,  and 
Dumping  Apparatus. 


In  most  wagons  for  refuse  collection  in  Europe  the  body  is  set  on 
hinges  at  the  rear  axle,  and  is  dumped  by  raising  the  forward  end. 


140     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

This  permits  a  large  wagon  body  to  be  used,  and  facilitates  dumping 
anywhere  with  reasonable  speed.  The  front  of  the  wagon  body  can 
be  lifted  by  a  crane  at  the  unloading  station,  as  is  the  case  also  at 
Columbus,  Ohio,  or  by  a  hand-turned  gear. 

In  Lakewood,  Ohio,  the  garbage  is  collected  in  large  cans  placed  on 
low-hung,  horse-drawn  vehicles.  At  the  transfer  station  these  cans 
are  transferred  to  6-ton  motor  trucks,  each  carrying  six  cans.  The 
motor  truck  and  the  horse-drawn  vehicle,  both  built  by  the  Tiffin 
Wagon  Company,  are  shown  in  Fig.  31. 

A  6i-yd.  rubbish  wagon,  with  a  hand-power  hoist,  also  built  by  the 
Tiffin  Company,  used  in  East  Cleveland,  Ohio,  is  shown  by  Fig.  32. 

The  garbage  wagon  built  by  the  Holzbog  Company  is  shown  by 
Fig.  33.     The  body  has   tight   covers,  and  the  interior  contains  no 


1. 

Ji 

li. 

-^O^iik 

■ 

m 

^M 

4-^ 

!S 

■lij 

"^a 

f; 

f^ 

"^"iV,  ;^- 

m 

H' 

^l^sfesS.,  ... 

ll."ii|p 

... 

^1 

m 

wm 

K^ 

*-a 

B 

M 

.^«<^#-w 

%^^ 

"■"  -"*>,  1 

^"HSMKKKBSBI^BK 

— — W««jjji^-l^^^ 

■KiP 

^sm 

Fig.  31. — Six-ton  Motor  Truck  Carrying  Six  Garbage  Containers;  and 
Horse-drawn  Collection  Wagon  Carrying  One  Garbage  Container,  Lake- 
wood,  Ohio. 

niches  or  corners  where  filth  might  be  retained.  The  method  of 
dumping  is  evident  from  the  illustration.  The  wagon  is  made  in 
two  sizes,  having  capacities  of  37  and  54  cu.  ft.,  for  one  horse  or  two. 

Wagons  are  also  built  with  removable  steel  bodies  which  can  be 
lifted  from  the  truck  by  a  crane  and  placed  on  freight  cars  or  scows 
for  removal  to  the  disposal  works,.  The  removable  body  is  often  lifted 
directly  into  the  disposal  plant  and,  after  dumping,  is  returned  to  the 
wagon  frame.  This  method  of  unloading  is  used  at  Minneapolis, 
Chicago,  and  Milwaukee,  at  Zurich,  Frankfort,  and  Hamburg,  in 
Europe,  and  at  other  places.  The  unloading  requires  considerable 
time,  depending  on  the  length  of  the  crane.  At  the  Milwaukee  incin- 
erator, it  is  possible  to  unload  by  this  method  from  20  to  25  wagons 
per  hour  per  crane.     With  two  cranes  working,  the  capacity  of  the 


COLLECTION 


141 


plant  for  unloading  is  about  40  wagons  per  hour,  which  is  just  suf- 
ficient to  keep  ahead  of  them  as  they  arrive. 


1 

1 

v.    .             1 

III! 

1      >-"'               L.» 

'--'"gg 

917 

wH^^^Bj 

P 

Wl^^^^s^'^ 

■■ 

- 

Pig.  32. — Special  6|-yard  Rubbish  Wagon  with  Hand-power  Hoist,  East 

Cleveland,  Ohio. 


Vm 

■^ 

f  w^p^E^HH 

Itti^HiHtlSn^HiBRSHBI 

\<«^y5H^^^^9|^^^^^^ 

Wm^A!J.M. 

fa^saa^ 

Fig.  33. — Holzbog  Garbage  Wagon. 

Ash  and  rubbish  wagons  in  Chicago  are  built  with  fixed  wooden 
bodies,  having  a  capacity  of  5  cu.  yd.     When  unloading  at  the  dump. 


142     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

the  refuse  must  be  shoveled  out  at  the  rear  end.     The  average  time 
required  for  unloading  one  wagon  is  about  twenty-five  minutes. 

In  order  to  shorten  the  time  of  unloading  at  the  refuse  disposal 
works,  and  to  make  the  wagon  independent  of  the  unloading  machinery, 
dumping  or  storage  pits  may  be  provided.  Such  pits  are  utilized  at 
the  mixed  refuse  incinerators  in  Pateison,  Clifton,  Havana,  Savannah, 
and  San  Francisco.  The  wagons  dump  directly  into  the  pits,  and  the 
refuse  is  lifted  from  them  by  grab-buckets,  and  conveyed  to  the  fur- 
naces. 

At  some  other  places,  large  buckets  are  set  into  cellar  pits  below 
the  roadway  level,  as  in  Brooklyn,  instead  of  using  one  large  dumping 
pit.  Bottom-dumping  wagons  drive  over  the  buckets  and  discharge 
into  them.  The  buckets  are  subsequently  lifted  by  cranes  and  taken 
to  the  furnace.  At  Milwaukee,  four  such  buckets  are  provided.  At 
Greenock,  Scotland,  there  are  two  pits  each  large  enough  to  hold  one 
special  bucket.  There  are  100  of  these  buckets  at  the  plant.  An 
empty  one  is  dropped  into  a  pit,  and,  when  filled,  is  lifted  by  a  crane 
and  placed  on  a  storage  floor  above  the  furnace.  The  refuse  is  stored 
in  these  buckets  until  burned. 

7,  Cleaning  Wagons. — The  separate  collection  of  garbage,  as 
practiced  mostly  in  America,  demands  a  frequent  and  thorough  clean- 
ing of  the  wagons.  Under  European  conditions,  with  mixed  refuse, 
the  wagons  are  ordinarily  washed  after  each  day's  work.  In  Mil- 
waukee, two  washings  a  week,  with  a  hose  and  a  broom,  were  not 
sufficient  to  prevent  the  garbage  wagons  from  creating  a  nuisance  in 
hot  weather.  In  Chicago,  the  garbage  wagons  are  fitted  with  remov- 
able bodies,  which  are  cleaned  by  dipping  them  into  a  large  tank  of  hot 
water.  This  is  done  just  after  the  wagon  body  has  been  unloaded  by 
the  crane  at  the  reduction  works.  When  the  washing  is  not  done  regu- 
larly, offensive  odors  result.     Frequent  re-painting  is  also  desirable. 

The  European  refuse  wagon  is  ordinarily  arranged  to  dump  by 
tipping  it  over  the  rear  axle.  When  it  is  in  this  position,  it  can  be 
easily  flushed  and  cleaned  at  the  yard  with  a  hose.  This  method 
seems  to  be  preferable  to  most  others.  The  washing  at  Milwaukee 
required  a  man  to  get  into  the  wagon  and  sweep  the  water  out  with  a 
broom.     An  estimate  of  the  cost  of  washing  per  wagon  was  as  follows: 

100  wagons  can  be  washed  per  day  by  one  man,  at  $2.00 $0 .  02 

330  gal.  of  water,  at  6  cents  per  1000  gal 0.02 

Fixed  and  overhead  charges,  driver's  time,  etc 0.01 

Total  cost  per  wagon $0 .  05 

The  design  of  a  wagon,  particularly  one  to  be  used  for  the  collec- 
tion of  garbage  alone,  should  include  arrangements  for  easy  cleaning, 


COLLECTION  143 

preferably  by  water  from  a  hose  under  pressure.  As  the  odor  i'rcjin 
garbage  results  from  putrefaction,  the  leavings  in  the  unwashed 
wagons  are  the  chief  cause  of  the  trouble. 

8.  Horses. — With  reference  to  the  care  of  horses  used  for  refuse 
collection,  we  can  do  no  better  than  refer  to  a  pamphlet  prepared  by 
the  Department  of  Street  Cleaning  of  New  York  City,  when  Mr. 
Fetherston  was  Commissioner,  defining  the  duties  and  responsibilities 
of  the  veterinarians  of  the  department  and  systematizing  the  medical 
care  of  the  stock.  This  pamphlet  was  prepared  and  liberally  dis- 
tributed, advising  how  to  prevent  sickness  of  horses,  how  to  deter- 
mine sickness,  and  what  to  do  for  it.  It  also  outlined  the  proper 
manner  in  which  the  stock  was  to  be  watered  and  fed. 

The  result  in  the  Department  was  very  beneficial,  as  it  greatly 
reduced  the  sick  and  death  rates  and  increased  the  amount  of  work 
that  could  be  done  by  the  horses.  Every  horse  is  well  cared  for,  and 
receives  a  new  shoe  on  each  foot  at  least  once  a  month.  Throughout 
the  year  the  feet  are  equipped  with  hoof  protectors,  when  pads  are 
not  used.  In  the  winter  the  horses  are  provided  with  heavy  woolen 
blankets. 

It  is  still  the  prevailing  practice  to  use  horses  for  collecting  refuse  at 
the  houses,  because  of  its  economy.  The  many  stops  required  result  in 
a  very  irregular  power  demand,  and  an  uneconomical  service  for 
motor  vehicles.  Horse-drawn  vehicles,  therefore,  are  preferable, 
especially  for  a  haul  of  less  than  one  or  two  miles.  It  maj'^  appar- 
ently be  a  long  time  before  horse  power  will  be  displaced  by  electric 
power,  or  even  gasoline  power,  when  the  collection  is  from  small 
areas  or  scattered  buildings  and  for  light  loads.  Data  regarding 
the  decrease  in  the  number  of  horses  in  cities  will  be  found  in  Chap- 
ter XIV. 

9.  Motor  Trucks. — The  rapid  increase  in  the  use  of  large  gasoline 
trucks  in  the  place  of  horse-drawn  trucks  has  been  due  to  the  fact 
that  the  larger  the  tonnage  of  the  vehicle,  the  less  will  be  the  mileage 
of  haul  per  ton,  and  consequently  the  cost  of  haulage  per  ton-mile. 
It  is  practicable  to  increase  greatly  the  sizes  of  power  trucks,  but  it  is 
not  practicable  to  increase  greatly  the  sizes  of  horse-drawn  trucks,  due 
to  the  limitation  of  the  individual  horse  power. 

Therefore,  when  large  quantities  of  refuse  can  be  collected  within  a 
short  distance,  large  motor  trucks  will  generally  be  economical,  as  in 
densely  populated  sections  of  a  city.  From  transfer  stations  to  final 
disposal  points  horses  no  longer  provide  the  cheapest  transportation. 

The  expense  of  purchasing  a  motor  truck,  and  allowing  for  fixed 
charges,  as  well  as  for  the  additional  cost  of  the  stop-and-start  service, 
is  much  greater  than  that  of  horse-drawn  carts  or  trucks  having  the 


144     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

same  capacity.  Its  cost  per  hour,  therefore,  is  much  greater.  In 
order  to  justify  this  excess  of  cost,  a  motor  truck  must  be  used  for  a 
correspondingly  greater  amount  of  work  per  hour.  It  does  its  maxi- 
mum work  when  it  is  loaded  full  and  moving.  Therefore,  it  must 
get  its  load  quickly,  make  short  stops,  and  as  few  of  them  as  possible. 

This  requirement  tends  to  rule  out  motor  trucks  for  the  house 
collection  service  of  garbage,  where  the  loaded  increments  are  small, 
and  the  stops  are  frequent  and  sometimes  of  long  duration. 

Trailers,  drawn  by  horses,  may  be  used  for  house  collections,  and 
when  filled  hauled  to  convenient  points,  from  which  a  train  of  three  or 
four  may  be  taken  by  an  auto  truck  to  a  transfer  station  or  the  place 
of  final  disposal.     (See  Fig.,  52.) 

The  following  information  has  been  gained  from  several  cities: 

Boston. — The  City  operates  two  5-ton,  rear-dump,  electric  trucks  for 
collecting  ashes,  rubbish,  and  street  sweepings.  The  trucks  make  house-to- 
house  collections,  and  deliver  the  material  to  dumps. 

New  Bedford. — A  private  collector  operates  one  3-ton,  gasoline  truck  for 
refuse  collection. 

Lawrence. — A  3-ton,  gasoline  truck  is  operated  by  the  Health  Depart- 
ment for  refuse  collection. 

Jersey  City. — A  private  collector  operates  one  3-ton,  gasoline  truck  for 
refuse  collection. 

Detroit. — The  City  operates  two  3-ton,  gasoline  trucks  for  removing 
garbage  from  hotels  and  restaurants. 

Lansing. — The  City  is  collecting  with  a  motor  equipment  consisting  of 
one  Duplex,  four-wheeled  truck  of  3|  tons  capacity,  with  a  trailer  of  the  same 
size,,  requiring  three  men.  The  large  truck  is  especially  advantageous  in 
winter,  when  roads  are  bad.  There  are  also  about  half  a  dozen  smaller  trucks 
in  use,  of  1  or  2  tons  capacity,  each  requiring  two  men. 

Rochester. — It  ic  reported  that  the  economical  low  limit  of  haul  for 
motor  trucks  is  2.25  mOes. 

Atlanta. — The  Street  Cleaning  Department  operates  several  gasoline 
trucks  for  coUectrng  mb^ed  refuse  from  houses  and  hauling  it  to  the  city  incin- 
erator.    (Fig.    34.) 

JoLiET. — The  City  operates  a  3.5-ton,  gasoline  truck  equipped  with  an 
automatic,  rear-dump  body.  It  is  used  for  house-to-house  collection  of  gar- 
bage. 

AsHEViLLE . — An  electric  truck  is  used  for  house-to-house  collection  of  gar- 
bage. The  body  is  aU  steel  and  water-tight,  and  has  a  number  of  hinged 
covers.     It  is  dumped  from  the  rear  by  a  hand-hoist. 

Washington. — Prior  to  July  1st,  1918,  both  the  collection  and  disposal 
of  the  garbage  were  under  one  contract.  Collections  were  made  in  horse- 
drawn  vehicles,  each  carrying  a  metal  tank  body  having  a  capacity  of  about 
2|  cu.  yd.  The  filled  tanks  were  removed  from  the  running  gear  at  a  transfer 
station  within  the  city  limits  and  placed  on  rack  cars  for  raU  transportation 
to  the  disposal  plant  about  30  miles  down  the  Potomac  River  in  Virginia. 


COLLECTION 


145 


The  District  took  over  the  work  at  that  time  and  has  continued  it  along  the 
same  general  lines,  but  has  used  motorized  equipment  for  making  collections 
from  hotels,  restaurants,  and  other  large  garbage  producing  centers  in  the 
down-town  districts. 

Miami,  Fla. — For  the  collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish,  Miami  has  five 
3  2 -ton  and  two  2^ -ton  motor  trucks,  and  two  2-horse  waeons,  and,  in  addi- 


FiG.  34. — Refuse  Collection  Truck,  Atlanta,  Ga. 


tion  to  the  drivers,  has  25  laborers.     The  daily  cost  of  operation,  including  the 
wages  of  the  drivers,  gasoline,  oil,  repairs,  and  depreciation  in  1920  was : 

5  3§-ton    trucks    at  $13. 00 $65.00 

2  2i-     "       "          "    11.00 22.00 

2    2-horse  wagons  '  •      6.00 12.00 

25  laborers              "      2.75 68.75 


$167.75 


The  daily  collection  of  garbage  has  been  15  tons;  and  of  rubbish,  30  tons. 
The  average  length  of  haul  is  1|  miles.  The  cost  per  ton  for  collecting  garbage 
and  rubbish  is  $3.73. 

Miami  has  also  operated  a  2-ton  electric  truck  for  house-to-house  collec- 
tion of  garbage.  This  vehicle  has  two  fiat  decks,  on  which  the  cans  are  placed. 
Starting  in  the  morning  with  a  load  of  clean  cans,  one  was  left  at  each  house 
from  which  a  full  can  was  taken.  The  cost  of  the  truck  was  $3300,  and  the 
cost  of  operation,  exclusive  of  fixed  charges,  amounted  to  about  $9  per  day. 
This  included  the  wages  of  two  helpers  for  loading  the  truck. 

Salt  Lake  City. — From  August,  1918,  until  August,  1919,  collections 
were  made  with  two  35-ton  trucks  and  one  2-ton  truck,  each  drawing  one  or 


146     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

two  25-ton  trailers,  all  with  specially  built  steel  dumping  bodies  and  with 
compartments  to  keep  the  garbage  separated  from  other  refuse,  as  noted 
from  an  article  in  Engineering  News-Record  of  May  13th,  1920. 

It  was  found  that,  on  account  of  the  excessive  costs  of  upkeep  of  the  trucks 
and  trailers,  the  abuse  which  they  received  from  the  class  of  labor  it  was  neces- 
sary to  employ,  and  because  the  trucks  had  to  be  continually  stopped  and 
started  when  collecting  from  house  to  house,  the  expense  was  too  great.  There- 
fore, in  August,  1919,  their  use  was  discontinued,  with  the  exception  of  a  S^-ton 
Federal  truck  with  trailer,  which  is  used  at  night.  This  truck  and  trailer, 
supplemented  with  two  2-horse  outfits  with  specially  constructed  bodies  on 
the  wagons,  collect  at  night  all  the  refuse  in  the  business  district. 

Los  Angeles. — -Refuse  is  collected  from  the  outlying  districts  with  motor 
trucks.  The  fuU  load  is  hauled  an  average  distance  of  8  miles.  Two  2|-ton 
trucks  collect  about  300  tons  of  garbage  per  month.  Garbage  was  formerly 
collected  from  these  districts  by  3-horse  outfits,  each  making  one  trip  a  day. 
Teams  are  still  used  in  the  short-haul  zones. 

During  the  last  two  years,  trucks  have  been  introduced  at  Mis- 
soula, Butte,  Dubuque,  Springfield,  Mass.,  and  elsewhere.  There 
are,  therefore,  many  cities  where  motor  trucks  are  used  in  the  refuse 
collection  service. 

In  view  of  the  large  decrease  in  the  number  of  horses  in  the  Metro- 
politan District  of  New  York,  it  seems  that  the  motor  truck  will  soon 
replace  the  horse,  at  least,  in  industrial  and  commercial  work.  The 
delay  in  substituting  the  power  trucks  more  rapidly  is  ascribed,  not 
to  the  first  cost  as  much  as  to  the  expense  of  upkeep  of  material 
and  of  apparatus  which  deteriorates  very  rapdily. 

After  a  thorough  study,  the  Efficiency  Division  of  the  Chicago 
Civil  Service  Commission  reported,  in  July,  1915,  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  gasoline  and  electric  trucks  in  place  of  horse  carts  was  not 
justified  on  account  of  the  expense. 

For  a  3-ton  truck  or  tractor  the  report  gives  as  first  cost  $4000  for 
gasoline,  and  $5000  for  electric  trucks.    The  fixed  charges  per  year  are 
$1894  for  gasoline  and  $1887  for  electric  trucks. 
The  operating  expenses  per  mile  were: 

Gasoline     Electric 

Depreciation $0.05        $0.03 

Tires 0.06  0.06 

Maintenance  and  repairs 0 .  03  0 .  03 

Oil  and  grease 0.005  0.005 

Energy,  gasoline   13 1   cents  per  gal- 
lon, electricity  |  cent  per  kw.-hr. .  .       0.034  0.005 


$0,179        $0,130 

The  trucks  are  nearly  all  operated  by  gasoline.     Electric  trucks  are 
most  satisfactory  on  level  roads,  and  can  be  used  safely  only  when 


COLLECTION  147 

electric  power  is  readily  available.  As  the  incineration  of  refuse  can 
produce  steam  and  steam  can  produce  electricity,  it  is  practicable  to 
use  the  latter  for  loading  the  storage  batteries  which  can  be  placed 
on  the  collecting  trucks.  For  other  methods  of  final  disposal,  gasoline 
motors  for  collection  purposes,  even  on  steep  grades,  are  more  likely 
to  be  preferred,  because  of  their  easier  and  less  delicate  operation. 

10.  Wagon  Attendants. — The  number  of  attendants  going  with 
each  collection  wagon  generally  varies  from  one  to  three.  Thus,  at 
Milwaukee,  with  1.5-cu.  yd.  wagons,  there  is  one  man.  At  Buffalo 
and  Newark,  with  4.0  to  5.0-cu.  yd.  wagons,  there  are  three  and 
sometimes  four  men  to  the  wagon.  In  such  cases  one  man  works 
on  each  side  of  a  street,  bringing  the  cans  to  and  from  the  curb,  and 
the  third  man  empties  them  into  the  wagon.  This  is  sometimes 
termed  the  "  roller  "  system.  At  Toledo,  with  3-cu.  yd.  wagons  and 
at  Cleveland  with  2.5-cu.  yd.  wagons,  there  is  one  attendant  in  some 
districts  and  two  in  others.  In  Chicago  and  Pittsburgh,  with  4.0- 
cu.  yd.  wagons,  there  are  two  men  to  each  wagon. 

The  selection  depends  on  the  location  of  the  house  can,  the  length 
of  wagon  haul,  the  time  available  for  collection,  the  relative  cost  of 
teams  and  men,  the  density  and  character  of  population,  and  other 
local  factors.  It  is  found  in  practice  under  average  city  conditions 
that  one  man  can  collect  from  about  70  to  75  houses  per  hour  when  the 
cans  are  placed  at  the  rear  door  and  that  from  275  to  300  houses  con- 
stitutes a  good  day's  effort.  If  the  cans  are  at  the  curb,  the  number 
may  be  increased  up  to  about  500.  The  following  compilation  is 
typical:  Assume  two  hours  of  haul  out  of  an  eight-hour  day  for  one 
load.  During  the  six  hours  for  collection  one  man  would  have  time  to 
collect  from  about  420  houses,  which  is  too  many  for  a  single  load,  and 
is  too  much  effort  for  one  man.  If  two  loads  are  made,  leaving  4.5 
hours  for  collection  (an  extra  half  hour  is  gained  because  one  trip  to 
and  from  the  barn  is  eliminated),  the  wagon  with  two  men  can  make 
collections  from  more  than  675  houses.  The  greater  use  of  the  team 
must  be  balanced  against  the  cost  of  the  extra  man. 

11.  Equipment  in  Some  American  Cities. — For  the  collection  of 
garbage  in  the  large  cities  of  Ohio,  a  special  equipment  is  provided. 
There  are  two  general  types  of  wagons.  In  Cleveland,  Columbus, 
Cincinnati,  Dayton,  Steubenville,  and  Zanesville  covered  tank  bodies 
of  steel  are  used.  In  other  cities  of  the  State  the  wagons  are  built 
with  two  platforms  on  which  the  householders'  cans  are  placed  directly. 
The  Cleveland  and  Columbus  wagons  are  alike,  and  are  designed  for 
dumping  their  contents  without  removal  of  the  bodies.  In  Cincinnati 
and  Dayton  the  bodies  may  be  removed  from  the  running  gear,  trans- 
ported to  the  point  of  disposal,  and  dumped.     The  platform  wagons 


148     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

holding  the  cans  are  somewhat  less  economical  than  the  tank  wagons, 
but  are  suitable  for  small  cities  where  the  quantities  of  garbage  are  not 
great. 

In  the  smaller  cities  of  Ohio,  the  collection  wagons  go  directly 
to  the  disposal  plants,  but  in  the  larger  cities,  where  the  length  of  haul 
becomes  economically  important,  transfer  stations  have  been  estab- 
lished, where  the  garbage  may  be  dumped  into  specially  constructed 
cars,  or  left  in  the  wagon  bodies  to  be  placed  on  flat  cars  and  trans- 
ported to  the  point  of  final  disposal.  The  latter  method  is  prac- 
ticed in  all  the  large  cities  in  Ohio. 

In  1910  only  three  Ohio  cities,  Cincinnati,  Cleveland,  and  Dayton, 
had  organized  refuse  collection  systems  for  ashes  and  rubbish.  Others 
depended  on  private  scavengers.  Although  the  separate  collection  of 
these  two  materials  is  practiced  in  Ohio  in  certain  localities,  they  are 
generally  collected  and  disposed  of  together. 

Dayton  has  a  modification  of  the  slat-board  type  of  wagon. 
Local  conditions  are  met  at  Cincinnati  by  the  use  of  a  back-dump 
wagon  manufactured  by  the  city  street-cleaning  department,  and  at 
Cleveland  by  the  use  of  a  bottom-dump  wagon  of  standard  make. 
The  opinion  seems  to  prevail  that,  for  the  best  economic  results,  where 
there  is  a  combined  collection  of  ashes  and  rubbish,  the  wagon  should 
have  a  capacity  of  from  3  to  4  cu.  yd. 

In  Westmount,  Que.,  the  city  forces  collect  all  refuse  together  in 
the  same  carts  during  the  summer,  or  from  April  18th  to  November 
18th,  when  there  are  only  small  quantities  of  ashes.  During  the  five 
months  of  winter  the  ashes  are  large  in  quantity  and  are  collected 
separately  from  the  garbage  and  rubbish.  After  delivery  they  are 
sifted  through  screens  of  |-in.  mesh.  The  fine  material  is  dumped  or 
taken  away  free  for  private  use;  the  coarse  material  is  mixed  with 
garbage  and  rubbish,  and  burned  in  the  incinerator.  The  average 
number  of  loads  collected  daily  varies  from  6  to  8,  according  to  the 
season.  The  average  haul  is  about  1  mile,  or  from  12  to  16  miles  a 
day  for  each  cart.  In  the  winter  large  sleighs  are  used  for  collecting. 
These  have  two  compartments,  one  opening  at  the  rear  and  the  other 
at  each  side.  In  the  summer  the  two-wheeled  Scotch  dump  cart, 
drawn  by  one  horse,  is  used.     Three  men  attend  each  cart. 

In  Ottawa,  Ont.,  there  is  no  separation  of  refuse,  ashes,  or  garbage 
all  being  placed  in  the  same  receptacle.  The  collections  are  made 
once  a  week,  except  that  in  summer  the  business  section  has  an  extra 
collection. 

The  collection  wagons  are  larger  than  in  many  American  cities,  as 
they  carry  about  7  cu.  yd.  An  arrangement  of  canvas  and  chains  is 
placed  on  the  bottom  and  up  to  the  front  of  the  wagon  before  it  is 


coLLECTirm  149 

loaded;  then,  when  the  wagon  arrives  at  the  incinerator  or  dump,  the 
chains  are  attached  to  a  cable  and  the  load  is  rolled  out  at  the  back, 
the  tail-board  having  first  been  removed. 

12.  Equipment  in  Some  European  Cities. — Greater  advances 
have  been  made  in  European  than  in  American  cities  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  equipment  required  for  refuse  collection.  This  is  partly 
due  to  the  greater  age  of  European  cities,  and  partly  to  the  fact  that 
in  most  cases  foreign  officials  have  taken  up  the  problem  in  a  more 
scientific  way,  and  have  made  prior  trials  and  tests  to  determine  the 
most  suitable  equipment  for  the  particular  needs  of  the  district  in 
question. 

The  wagon  equipments  in  Europe  vary  somewhat,  but  the  devel- 
opment toward  standards  has  gone  farther  than  in  America.  Where 
modern  wagons  have  been  adopted,  they  are  constructed  to  receive 
and  discharge  the  refuse  from  the  house  cans  without  exposing  it  to 
the  air.  In  nearly  all  cases,  they  are  designed  to  be  operated  in  con- 
junction with  standard  cans.  A  greater  advance  was  possible, 
because  the  people  are  accustomed  to  comply  more  readily  with  the 
regulations  of  the  municipal  departments. 

Fig.  35  shows  a  typical  horse-drawn  wagon  for  collecting  com- 
bined refuse,  as  used  in  Bremen,  Germany.  It  has  lower  and  upper 
loading  doors  at  the  rear  and  also  upper  doors  at  the  sides  and  toward 
the  front.  This  arrangement  of  doors  facilitates  the  loading  bj' reducing 
the  height  to  which  the  cans  must  be  lifted  before  they  are  dumped. 

Electric  trucks  are  being  used  in  Hamburg,  Germany,  for  refuse 
collection.  The  body  has  a  capacity  of  about  5  cu.  yd.,  and  the  cost 
of  the  truck  in  Germany  is  about  S4000.  The  total  weight  is  about 
11,000  lb.  It  is  fitted  with  two  electric  motors,  each  of  4.5  h.-p. 
A  truck  can  make  four  trips  each  night,  covering  about  35  miles  in 
eight  hours.  At  the  end  of  each  night's  work,  the  batteries  are 
replaced  with  others  freshly  charged  with  electricity  generated  at  the 
city  refuse  incinerator.  The  cost  of  operation  in  Hamburg,  reduced 
to  cents  per  cubic  yard  per  mile,  is  given  as  follows : 

Tires 0.84  cent 

Power 0.70      " 

Miscellaneous 0 .  20      '* 

Total 1 .  74  cents 

These  are  very  low  figures.  The  superintendent  in  Hamburg 
stated  that  the  motor  truck  was  only  then  cheaper  than  two-horse 
wagons  of  similar  capacity,  when  operated  in  two  shifts  of  eight  hours 
per  day,  which  distributed  the  fixed  charges  over  a  large  tonnage  of 
refuse.     (Fig.  36.) 


150    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


G.— ORGANIZATION 

Efficient  service  in  collection  work  depends  largely  on  the  organi- 
zation and  the  methods  of  operation  used  in  the  collection.     It  should 


be  adapted  both  to  the   character   of  the   city  and  to  the  detailed 
requirements  of  the  service. 

There  should  be  a  single  responsible  head  controlling  and  directing 
the  activities  of  a  suitable  number  of  assistants,  who,  in  turn,  should 


COLLECTION 


151 


control  and  direct  the  men  in  their  various  duties  down  to  the  last 
detail,  so  that  harmonious  work  results  with  a  minimum  loss  of 
efficiency  and  time.  There  should  be  a  complete  system  of  daily 
reporting,  so  that  the  character  and  amount  of  all  the  work  done  in 
the  service  is  fully  known,  as  well  as  the  time  devoted  to  each  kind  of 
work. 

In  at  least  the  larger  cities  it  is  customary  to  uniform  the  men, 
which  not  only  draws  attention  to  their  authority,  but  more  effectively 
generates  the  consciousness  of  responsibility.  Table  52  contains 
data  regarding  the  uniforms  in  many  cities. 


Fig.  36. — Electric  Truck  for  Refuse  Collection,  Hamburg,   Germany. 


There  are  three  typical  systems  of  collection  operation  in  American 
cities. 

1.  Municipal  collection,  by  the  municipality  with  its  own  equip- 
ment and  working  force. 

2.  Contract  collection,  by  which  the  city  pays  a  private  party  or 
corporation  to  do  the  work  with  its  own  or  the  city's  equipment. 
In  some  cities  the  contractor  is  permitted  to  charge  the  householders 
a  fixed  sum  for  the  service. 

3.  Scavenger  system,  whereby,  under  license  or  regulation  of  the 
health  department,  certain  individuals  are  permitted  to  collect  the 
garbage  and  rubbish  within  defined  areas  of  the  city. 

This  latter  system  is,  as  a  rule,  impractical  for  large  cities,  because 
of  a  lack  of  centralized  organization,  but  in  communities  of  less  than 
25,000  population  it  may  be  satisfactory  and  efficient.  Its  success, 
in  any  case,  depends  on  the  organization  and  the  enforcement  of  regu- 


152     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

lations.  The  fewer  the  collectors,  the  more  easily  is  their  work  super- 
vised, and  the  dangers  to  public  health  confined  and  safeguarded. 

For  the  larger  cities  the  preference  lies  between  contract  and 
municipal  collection. 

Evidence  seems  to  support  the  contention  that  municipal  collec- 
tion is  rao"e  sanitary,  and  that  contract  collection  is  more  efficient 
along  financial  lines;  but  the  better  sanitation  of  municipal  collection 
is  deemed  worth  the  extra  cost.  The  permanency  of  municipal  col- 
lection and  the  value  of  this  to  public  service  is  another  strong  influ- 
ence which  is  likely  to  induce  American  communities  to  adopt  this 
method. 

H.— OPERATION 

1.  By  Municipality.^ — In  the  majority  of  large  cities  throughout 
the  United  States,  and  in  Europe  almost  exclusively,  the  collection  is 
done  by  the  municipality.  The  city  controls,  if  it  does  not  always 
own,  the  collection  equipment;  and  the  men  employed  in  the  work 
are  directly  responsible  to  their  superiors,  who,  in  turn,  are  respon- 
sible to  the  public.  Some  cities  own  the  wagons  and  hire  the  drivers 
and  horses  by  the  day  or  month;  in  others  the  wagons  are  also  hired. 
Municipal  operation  is  generally  found  to  give  the  greater  satis- 
faction, for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  Sanitation,  not  profit,  is  the  primary  consideration,  and  supervision  is 
more  readily  effected. 

2.  Greater  flexibility  of  the  service  is  secured  to  meet  the  ever-changing 
conditions  of  season,  weather,  population,  etc. 

3.  The  work  is  directly  xmder  the  control  of  public  officials,  whose  chief 
object  is  to  render  good  service  to  the  public,  at  the  house  and  on  the  street,  at 
a  reasonable  cost;  thus  eliminating  the  not  unnatural  tendency  among  some 
contractors  to  do,  within  the  terms  of  the  contract,  as  little  as  practicable  and 
with  the  least  expenditure  of  money  by  themselves. 

4.  Direct  responsibility  to  the  public  produces  quicker  results. 

5.  It  is  less  expensive,  generally,  because  the  equipment  investment  is 
permanent;  and  no  fund  is  necessary  to  meet  emergencies,  and  no  profit  is 
included. 

There  are,  however,  certain  disadvantages  in  some  cities  in  operating 
refuse  collection  by  the  municipality,  as  follows: 

1.  Business  principles  are  sometimes  sacrificed  to  political  machinery,  when 
it  demands  unnecessary  changes  in  appointments,  methods,  etc. 

2.  The  operation  of  refuse  collection  may  fall  into  the  hands  of  incom- 
petent and  untrained  officials. 


COLLECTION  153 

Where  the  municipality  owns  the  plant,  or  hires  and  directs  the 
labor,  municipal  operation  is  carried  out  in  America  under  the  direc- 
tion of  either  the  Health  Department,  the  Street  Cleaning  Depart- 
ment, or  a  special  bureau  of  the  Department  of  Public  Works.  In 
some  instances  the  work  is  divided  between  the  Departments  of 
Health  and  Public  Works.  The  Health  Department  does  not  gen- 
erally undertake  more  than  the  garbage  collection  and  disposal,  and 
there  is  a  tendency  to  relieve  it  even  of  some  of  this  portion  of  the 
work.  Recent  reorganizations  of  Health  Departments  describe  their 
relation  to  refuse  disposal  as  largely  supervisory.  They  should 
inspect  the  work  of  the  refuse  collection  department  and  its  results, 
merely  as  regards  the  suppression  of  odors  and  nuisances,  to  protect 
public  health,  and  secure  a  high  standard  of  cleanliness. 

The  development  of  refuse  collection  and  disposal  in  Milwaukee 
during  the  last  ten  years  is  characteristic  of  the  progress  made  in  the 
management  of  such  work  in  the  Central  West.  Previous  to  1910, 
the  city's  ashes  and  rubbish  were  collected  under  the  Department  of 
Public  Works  by  a  superintendent  in  charge,  but  there  was  no  distinct 
bureau  for  this  purpose.  Garbage  was  collected  by  the  Department 
of  Health,  under  a  superintendent  reporting  to  the  Commissioner  of 
Health.  In  1910,  the  Department  of  Public  Works  was  reorganized, 
and  a  division  of  street  cleaning  created.  This  division  handled  the 
collection  and  disposal  of  all  refuse  materials,  as  well  as  cleaning  the 
streets.  The  superintendent  in  charge  of  the  division  appointed  a 
superintendent  to  handle  the  collection  of  garbage  for  the  entire  city. 
He  also  appointed  ward  superintendents  to  control  the  work  of  col- 
lecting ashes  and  rubbish  and  the  cleaning  of  streets.  These  ward 
superintendents  also  supervised  the  maintenance  of  dumps.  The 
final  disposal  of  garbage  was  entrusted  to  a  superintendent  of  garbage 
disposal. 

This  organization  was  an  improvement  over  the  earlier  method  of 
handling  the  work.  Further  betterments  might  result  if  the  city 
were  divided  into  about  half  a  dozen  districts,  with  a  foreman,  in 
charge  of  each  one,  to  look  after  all  the  work  in  his  district.  The 
disposal  works  require  a  special  foreman.  This  division  would  place 
the  responsibility  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men,  each  of  whom  could 
become  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  special  requirements  of  his 
own  district.  In  Detroit  the  work  is  thus  organized,  the  city  being 
divided  into  eight  districts. 

In  New  York  City,  the  Superintendent  of  Street  Cleaning  has 
charge  of  a  department  which  is  separate  and  distinct  from  all  others, 
but  is  limited  to  the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan,  Brooklyn,  and  The  Bronx. 
The  work  is  divided  into  various  bureaus,  respectively  charged  with 


154    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

street  cleaning,  refuse  collection,  and  final  disposal.  For  large  cities 
such  an  organization  has  many  advantages.  It  is  the  common  one 
in  most  European  cities. 

In  New  York,  Washington,  Boston,  Cleveland,  Detroit,  Columbus, 
Rochester,  etc.,  the  collection  equipment,  including  the  horses  and 
vehicles,  is  owned  by  the  city. 

New  York  officials  advocate  municipal  operation  for  collection  and 
disposal,  but  state  that  the  work  must  be  standardized,  and  each  man's 
task  clearly  defined.  Detroit  officials  are  unanimous  in  the  opinion 
that  all  collection  should  be  done  by  city  forces,  but  believe  that  the 
final  disposal  should  be  by  contract  in  the  case  of  a  reduction  plant, 
because  the  frequently  changing  personnel  of  city  governments  is 
not  favorable  to  continuity  of  operation;  and  also  that  the  person 
who  is  responsible  for  the  operation  of  the  plant  should  also  be  its 
designer.  Trenton  would  not  change  to  the  contract  method  of  col- 
lection because  the  people  co-operate  better  with  municipal  collection, 
and  are  less  inclined  to  litter  the  streets.  St.  Louis  and  Bufi^alo  claim 
that  better  and  cheaper  work  is  done  if  the  collection  is  by  the  munici- 
pality. 

In  Chicago,  the  collection  and  disposal  of  all  refuse  is  handled  by 
the  Bureau  of  Streets,  which  is  a  part  of  the  Department  of  Public 
Works.  The  Superintendent  of  this  bureau  is  appointed  by  the  Com- 
missioner of  Public  Works,  and  reports  to  him.  He  has  three  Assist- 
ant Superintendents,  each  one  being  assigned  to  a  different  part  of  the 
work.  The  actual  supervision  of  the  teams  and  laborers  falls  to  the 
various  Ward  Superintendents.  The  teams,  drivers,  and  vehicles 
are  hired  by  the  day.  After  an  investigation  of  the  collection  of 
refuse  in  Chicago,  the  following  recommendations  were  made  by 
Osborn  and  Fetherston: 

"  (1)  The  city  should  both  own  and  operate  all  the  equipment  and  works 
necessary  for  a  complete  system  of  collection,  transportation,  and  disposal  of 
all  classes  of  city  wastes. 

"  (2)  That  regular  and  systematic  collection  of  separated  classes  of  wastes 
(ashes,  garbage,  and  rubbish)  be  made  at  daily  or  tri-weekly  intervals,  de- 
pending on  the  character  of  the  districts  served  and  the  seasons  of  the  year. 

"  (3)  That  the  laws  regarding  the  separation  and  handling  of  the  different 
classes  of  wastes  by  the  householder  be  given  such  revision  as  may  be  neces- 
sary to  bring  them  into  proper  correlation  with  the  policies  as  to  collection  and 
disposal  recommended  and  to  secure  their  effective  enforcement. 

"  (4)  That  the  separation  of  all  refuse  into  the  designated  classes  be  made 
by  the  householders,  except  in  the  districts  where  the  combined  refuse  is  to  be 
disposed  of  by  incineration. 

"  (5)  That  a  competent  technical  staff  be  employed  to  develop,  install, 
and  operate  for  at  least  one  year  the  project  hereinafter  recommended,  and  to 


COLLECTION  155 

make  such  further  studies  and  tests  as  may  be  necessary  to  determine  in  detail 
the  most  suitable  type  of  receptacles  and  equipment  for  a  motor  collection 
service." 

2.  By  Contract. — The  work  of  collecting  refuse  has  been  frequently 
let  out  to  contractors  who  own  the  equipment,  as,  for  instance,  in  Phil- 
adelphia, Buffalo,  Reading,  Boston,  Newark,  San  Francisco,  and  other 
cities.  Some  are  now  contemplating  a  change  to  municipal  collection. 
In  the  different  cities  the  form  of  contract  and  the  scope  of  the  work 
differ.  In  some  the  work  is  let  to  a  single  contractor,  and  the  term 
may  vary  from  one  to  ten  years.  In  others,  individual  collectors  are 
licensed  to  do  the  work.  Frequently,  quite  elaborate  specifications 
are  prepared  to  govern  the  contractor's  work,  and  a  force  of  inspectors 
is  necessary,  on  the  part  of  the  city,  to  see  that  the  contract  and  speci- 
fications are  fulfilled. 

Contracts  for  doing  municipal  work  are  usually  limited  to  terms 
of  from  three  to  five  years.  For  such  short  terms,  requiring  a  large 
investment,  contractors  do  not  provide  the  most  durable  equipment 
or  build  works  on  a  permanent  basis,  nor  can  they  secure  men  with 
sufficiently  long  training.  A  ten-year  term  of  contract  would  be 
better,  although  risking  the  vicissitudes  of  strikes,  panic,  or  war. 
With  long  terms  and  a  more  permanent  equipment,  such  as  could  be 
afforded  by  the  larger  cities,  lower  costs  for  a  satisfactory  service 
might  be  secured  by  contract. 

Under  the  contract  method,  it  is  necessary  to  specify  the  exact 
character  of  the  work  to  be  done  and  also  the  requirements  which 
obligate  the  contractor  to  furnish  the  desired  service.  He  is  required 
to  maintain  an  efficient  organization  and  sufficient  equipment.  Rigid 
inspection  and  control  by  the  municipality  is  necessary  in  order  to 
secure  satisfactory  work. 

Therefore,  broad  and  rigid  specifications  must  be  prepared  for  the 
guidance  and  control  of  the  contractor.  These  should  cover  the  fol- 
lowing subjects,  among  others: 

Definition  of  refuse.  Cleaning  of  wagons, 

Removal  of  refuse,  Emergency  wagons, 

Refuse  receptacles.  Penalty  for  injury  to  house  cans 

Frequency  of  collection,  or  property, 

Maps  showing  routes  and  districts,  Penalty  for  failure  to  collect, 

Time  for  collections.  Disinfectants, 

Number  of  collectors,  Complaints, 

Collection  wagons,  Telephone  service. 

Provision  must  be  made  for  a  bond  of  sufficient  size  to  insure  full 
and  faithful  performance,  a  bonus  for  better  work  than  specified,  and  a 


156     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

penalty  for  breach  of  contract  or  for  insufficient  work,  sufficiently- 
large  to  make  such  action  highly  unprofitable.  Complete  and  detailed 
regulations  should  be  included  in  the  contract. 

Philadelphia  is  one  of  the  few  large  cities  where  collection  by  con- 
tract is  still  practiced.  A  recent  report,*  however,  made  by  city 
officials,  concludes  that  the  contract  system  is  disadvantageous,  and 
that  in  the  future  the  collection  should  be  made  by  municipal  forces. 

The  advantages  of  the  contract  system  are* 

1.  The  application  of  business  principles  is  more  readily  effected. 

2.  The  elimination  of  politics  from  the  operation  removes  some  chances 
for  unsatisfactory  changes  in  the  working  force. 

3.  A  simplification  of  the  work  of  the  municipality  is  advantageous,  chiefly 
in  smaller  towns. 

4.  A  definite  sum  of  money  is  fixed  in  advance  for  the  work. 

5.  Borrowing  funds  for  constructions  and  purchase  of  supplies  is  obviated, 
as  the  contractor  must  raise  the  capital. 

The  disadvantages  of  the  contract  system  are: 

1.  Profit,  not  sanitation,  is  the  predominating  influence.  The  contractor's 
criterion  is  the  least  sanitation  permissible  at  the  least  cost. 

2.  Operation  is  less  elastic,  and  contract  profits  may  be  reduced  by  sudden 
unforeseen  occurrences, 

3.  Response  to  unforeseen  occurrences  is  less  rapid.  Breach  of  contract 
may  produce  unsanitary  service. 

4.  As  usually  no  records  of  detaUs  are  kept,  it  is  difficult  for  the  city 
to  make  estimates  of  cost  and  of  efficiency  of  service. 

5.  The  uncertainties  in  ascertaining  the  approximate  quantities  of  refuse 
to  be  collected. 

6.  Lack  of  concern  for  public  welfare  invites  failure  to  give  full  service. 

7.  Lack  of  direct  responsibility  to  the  public  causes  hindrance  to  expedi- 
tious action. 

8.  Uncertainty  of  contract  renewal  causes  an  excessive  charge  for  use  of 
equipment. 

9.  The  apparently  frequent  difficulties  in  letting  a  contract  for  a  long 
term,  partly  in  view  of  strikes,  panic,  or  war. 

10.  In  view  of  the  foregoing  uncertainties,  the  contract  system,  especially 
for  large  cities,  is  frequently  more  costly. 

Notwithstanding  these  disadvantages,  the  contract  system  has  in  some 
instances  given  good  results. 

3.  Routing  the  Wagons. — Various  methods  of  conducting  the 
actual  collection  are  found  in  different  cities.  The  so-called 
"  roller "  system  has  been  practiced  in  Buffalo,  New  York,  and 
Springfield,  Mass.     Workmen  go  down  each  side  of  the  street,  about 

*  "  Report  on  the  Study  of  the  Methods  of  Street  Cleaning  and  Collection  and  Dis- 
posal of  Municipal  Wastes."     Journal,  Engineer's  Club,  Philadelphia,  August,  1920,  p.  326. 


COLLECTION  157 

one  hour  ahead  of  the  wagons,  and  roll  or  wheel  the  cans  out  to  the 
curb.  The  men  may  be  provided  with  small  trucks  for  this  purpose. 
Then  the  driver  empties  the  cans  into  the  wagon,  and,  in  some  cities, 
sprinkles  them  with  a  disinfectant.  Men  follow  the  wagons  and  roll 
the  empty  cans  from  the  curb  to  the  back  yard.  This  method  makes 
the  best  use  of  the  time  for  this  most  expensive  part  of  the  service, 
and  has  special  advantages  where  the  house  can  is  not  easily  accessible. 
The  use  of  electric  and  other  motor  trucks  in  the  collection  service 
demands  a  rapid  loading  and  a  minimum  time  of  stopping  at  each 
house.  The  "  roller  "  system  of  collection,  therefore,  may  prove  of 
advantage  in  connection  with  power-driven  collection  wagons,  as  in 
Hamburg,  Germany. 

For  the  collection  of  garbage,  the  City  of  Milwaukee  is  divided  into 
about  200  small  districts,  and  these  are  arranged  so  that  each  one, 
when  visited  at  regular  intervals,  yields  one  full  load  of  garbage. 
A  collector  is  assigned  to  two  districts,  one  with  a  long  and  the  other 
with  a  short  haul,  or  he  has  two  districts  having  together  an  average  or 
medium-length  haul.  The  city  covers  an  area  of  about  25  square 
miles,  and,  in  1910,  had  a  population  of  385,000.  Ninety-five  col- 
lectors were  required  to  serve  the  200  districts.  The  small  district 
system  has  the  advantage  of  permitting  the  collector  to  become  familiar 
with  his  district.  One  superintendent,  with  an  office  at  the  incinerator, 
has  charge  of  the  collection  work.  The  weighmaster  serves  as  his 
assistant.  The  districts  have  no  relation  to  the  political  boundaries 
of  wards  or  precincts. 

Where  the  workmen  are  of  sufficient  intelligence  to  co-operate 
fully  with  the  householder,  this  system  proves  quite  satisfactory. 
In  some  cities  the  wagons  carry  only  1.5  cu.  yd.  of  garbage,  and  the 
drivers  furnish  their  own  horses.  Consequently,  men  of  small  means — • 
and  sometimes  of  small  intelligence — purchase  the  necessary  horse  and 
vehicle  in  order  to  get  a  place  on  the  city  pay-roll.  The  work  is  too 
large  to  be  handled  effectively  by  one  superintendent  with  a  weigh- 
master as  assistant,  and  the  collectors,  as  a  rule,  do  not  give  to  the 
service  more  than  the  mechanical  operation  of  their  equipment. 

The  collection  of  ashes  and  rubbish  in  Milwaukee  is  under  the 
direction  of  the  Ward  Superintendents,  the  city  being  divided  into 
35  wards,  so  that  each  Superintendent  has  charge  of  a  comparatively 
small  district.  He  plans  the  collection  to  suit  the  special  require- 
ments of  his  district,  in  accordance  with  his  personal  knowledge  of  the 
residents,  the  locality,  and  the  money  appropriated  each  year. 

Recommendations  which  were  made  for  the  improvement  of 
garbage  collection  in  Milwaukee  included  the  use  of  wagons  having  a 
capacity  of  4  cu.  yd.,  and  the  appointment  of  two  Assistant  Super- 


158    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

intendents,  who  would  endeavor  to  secure  better  co-operation  between 
the  collectors  and  the  householders. 

In  Minneapolis,  a  city  covering  about  53  sq.  miles,  with  a  popula- 
tion of  more  than  300,000,  the  collection  of  all  the  refuse  is  under  the 
Health  Commissioner.  The  city  is  divided  into  31  districts,  which 
are  the  same  for  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish.  A  city  ordinance 
requires  that  all  garbage  shall  be  drained  of  water  and  wrapped  in 
paper  before  it  is  placed  in  the  can.  (See  Chapter  I.)  Thus,  also, 
a  lot  of  rubbish  is  collected  with  the  garbage.  For  the  31  districts 
there  are  as  many  collectors,  and  each  is  held  accountable  for  the 
removal  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  certain  portions  of  the  rubbish. 
The  collectors  are  paid  $100  per  month  (1915).  Their  duties  are  to 
maintain  a  clean  district^ — not  to  render  service  for  a  given  number  of 
hours  per  day.  The  minimum  standard  is  one  collection  of  mixed 
ashes  and  rubbish  and  one  collection  of  garbage  from  each  household 
per  week.  The  good  work  done  by  the  Minneapolis  department  is 
claimed  to  be  partly  due  to  separating  the  collection  districts  from 
those  which  are  purely  political. 

Columbus  has  a  refuse  collection  department  as  a  part  of  the 
Board  of  Pubhc  Service.  The  principal  duties  of  this  department  are 
the  collection  of  garbage,  rubbish,  and  manure.  Due  to  the  use  of 
natural  gas,  only  a  small  quantity  of  ashes  is  produced.  During  1912, 
curb  collections  were  made  twice  a  week  from  July  1st  to  October  1st, 
and  once  a  week  at  other  times.  Between  July  1st  and  October  1st, 
24  teams  were  engaged  in  the  work,  and,  during  the  remainder  of  the 
year,  18  teams.  There  are  18  collection  routes,  each  divided  into 
two  sections,  one  requiring  a  long  haul  to  the  transfer  station  and  the 
other  a  short  haul.  The  routes  are  grouped  so  as  to  give  each  team, 
as  far  as  possible,  about  an  equal  number  of  miles  to  travel  per  day, 
the  limit  being  an  average  of  about  16  miles.  Each  team  collects 
two  loads  daily.  The  city  owns  the  collection  equipment,  including 
horses  and  vehicles,  and  operates  stables,  blacksmith  shops,  and  a  farm 
for  raising  corn. 

Arranging  the  routes  so  that  a  wagon  visits  each  house  at  approxi- 
mately the  same  time,  on  fixed  days  of  the  week,  offers  an  advantage 
in  promoting  a  satisfactory  household  co-operation.  Time  schedules 
have  been  arranged  in  this  way  at  Buffalo,  and  at  Bremen,  Germany. 
This  method  of  routing  enables  a  superintendent  to  follow  the  work 
of  the  collectors  more  carefully  than  otherwise.  In  Bremen,  notice  of 
the  collectors'  approach  is  given  by  the  ringing  of  a  bell.  The  same 
system  is  practiced  in  certain  parts  of  Chicago. 

4.  Day  or  Night  Collection. — The  question  of  night  as  against  day 
collection  must  be  answered  in  each  city  by  the  existing  special  con- 


COLLECTION  159 

ditions.  There  is  some  sentiment  in  America  against  night  collection, 
chiefly  on  account  of  the  noise,  and  of  the  cans  sometimes  being 
stolen  when  set  out  at  night  for  the  collector.  In  down-town  districts, 
however,  it  is  often  difficult  to  make  collections  in  the  daytime 
because  of  the  crowded  streets. 

Mr.  William  H.  Edwards,  formerly  Commissioner  of  Street  Clean- 
ing in  New  York  City,  stated,  in  a  paper  read  before  the  American 
Public  Health  Association  in  1913,  that  night  collection  would  be 
advantageous  in  New  York  City.  He  objects  to  the  unsightliness  of 
cans  standing  in  front  of  buildings  during  the  day,  but  adds  that 
receptacles  can  be  kept  covered  more  easilj'  then  than  during  the 
night.  The  receptacles  are  less  of  an  obstruction  to  pedestrians  in  the 
night  than  in  the  day,  but,  when  placed  within  an  areaway,  it  is 
sometimes  difficult  for  the  collector  to  find  them  at  night.  The  effect 
of  the  heat  of  the  sun  radiating  from  pavements  in  summer  is  a 
further  and  distinct  drawback  in  day  collection,  both  for  men  and 
animals.  The  spilling  of  material  from  the  wagons  is  still  another 
disadvantage  of  the  day  collection.  With  night  collection  this 
nuisance  can  be  obviated  by  the  early  morning  cleaning  of  the  streets. 
On  the  other  hand,  supervision  of  the  work  at  night  is  more  difficult 
than  during  the  day,  and  in  the  dwelling-house  districts,  the  noise  of 
the  work  is  a  disadvantage. 

In  Milwaukee,  during  the  summer  of  1910,  there  was  a  public 
outcry  against  having  the  collection  wagons  on  the  streets  during  the 
day.  The  schedule  was  changed  so  that  collections  were  made  early, 
from  2  to  10  a.m.  This  worked  well  in  summer,  but  during  winter  it 
was  more  difficult  to  get  sufficiently  rapid  work,  and  it  was  necessary 
to  change  the  schedule  again,  so  that  collections  were  made  in  winter 
from  4  A.M.  until  noon.  This  use  of  early  morning  hours  in  summer  and 
winter,  by  combining  advantages  of  both  day  and  night  collections, 
seems  to  have  been  quite  satisfactory. 

In  European  cities  it  is  quite  common  to  collect  in  the  early  morn- 
ing. In  Paris  collections  are  made  from  7  to  9  a.m.  in  summer  and 
from  8  to  10  a.m.  in  winter. 

5.  Private  Collection. — In  some  of  the  larger  cities,  where,  in 
certain  districts,  the  municipal  collection  of  garbage  was  not  satis- 
factory, private  organizations,  or  improvement  associations,  have 
been  formed  to  do  this  work.  In  1913  it  was  found  that  in  Chicago 
there  were  approximately  130  such  organizations.  Twelve  of  these 
reported  annual  expenditures  totaling  $139,833  in  1911,  and  more 
than  $166,000  in  1912.  Such  organizations,  when  maintaining  the 
same  efficiency  as  city  departments,  cannot  ordinarily  do  the  work  as 
economically.     Private  collections,  however,  will  probably  continue 


160     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

to  be  made  from  hotels  and  restaurants,  particularly  in  the  larger 
cities,  because  of  the  profit  realized  from  the  sale  of  garbage  for 
feeding.  In  Rochester,  the  collection  contractor  is  not  required  to 
remove,  without  additional  payment,  garbage  from  groceries,  canning 
factories,  and  similar  establishments  when  in  excess  of  250  gal.  per 
week  for  any  single  establishment. 

I.— TECHNICAL  BOARDS 

In  Chicago  a  so-called  "  Technical  Board "  was  established, 
made  up  of  members  of  the  Bureau  of  Streets  and  of  the  Efficiency 
Division  of  the  Civil  Service  Commission.  This  board  had  for  its 
object  the  development  of  an  efficient  co-operation  among  the  officials 
of  the  Bureau  of  Streets  by  the  establishment  of  improved  methods, 
the  creation  of  an  expert  force  to  maintain  the  proposed  measures,  the 
training  of  experts  for  future  department  heads  under  the  promotion 
system,  and  the  more  certain  recognition  by  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission of  good  or  bad  service  in  the  bureau.  The  same  object,  in  a 
modified  form,  is  accomplished  at  Toronto,  Ont.,  where  a  special 
engineer  was  appointed  to  serve  with  the  Commissioner  of  Street 
Cleaning  to  develop  and  improve  the  collection  service.  The  develop- 
ment of  the  Technical  Board  in  Chicago  and  its  ample  financial  support 
was  recommended  in  a  report  by  Osborn  and  Fetherston.  Such 
boards  aid  in  satisfying  the  increasing  demand  for  better  service  in 
the  cleansing  departments. 

J.— EUROPEAN  DATA 

In  Europe,  the  collection  and  disposal  of  refuse  in  small  cities  is 
generally  in  the  hands  of  private  persons;  in  medium-sized  cities  it  is 
under  contract,  and  in  large  cities  the  work  is  done  by  the  municipality 
with  a  permanent  force  of  men.  Some  data  from  our  private  notes 
of  trips  to  Europe,  prior  to  and  including  1911,  are  summarized  briefly 
herewith. 

The  general  trend  of  European  practice  is  to  collect  all  refuse 
together,  and  in  one  rather  small  house-can  set  out  on  the  sidewalk; 
the  collections  are  frequent,  mostly  daily,  and  the  wagons  are  com- 
paratively large  and  have  fixed  covers. 

In  England  the  Proceedings  of  the  Association  of  Cleansing  Super- 
intendents contain  much  valuable  information.  In  the  Poplar  Dis- 
trict of  London,  collections  are  made  at  least  twice  a  week  from  small 
bins  placed  on  the  sidewalks.  The  one-horse  carts  used  are  of  wood, 
and  are  dumped  by  tipping  over  the  rear  axle. 


COLLECTION  161 

In  Birmingham,  in  August,  1919,  it  was  the  intention  to  establish 
a  dual  refuse  system,  requiring  two  cans  at  each  house,  one  to  receive 
only  the  ashes  and  sweepings  and  the  other  the  garbage  and  rubbish. 
The  collecting  wagons  were  to  be  divided  into  two  compartments  for 
the  two  classes  of  material.  The  ashes  and  sweepings  were  to  be 
screened,  and  the  fine  dust — about  one-half  of  the  total  quantity — 
was  to  be  delivered  to  farmers  as  a  dressing  for  land,  the  rest  was  to 
be  dumped  on  low  land.  The  garbage  and  rubbish  were  to  be  emptied 
on  a  long  traveling  belt  from  which  the  valuable  materials  were  to  be 
picked  out  and  the  rest  used  for  fuel  in  the  plant.  Tin  cans  were  to  be 
de-tinned.  During  the  war,  rags  found  a  ready  sale.  Cotton  and 
wool  were  separated,  washed,  dried,  and  sold. 

In  Paris,  the  pails  are  emptied  into  collecting  wagons — usually 
two-wheeled — before  8  a.m.  One  man  {le  charretier)  stands  on  the 
wagon  and  receives  the  pail,  empties  it,  and  spreads  the  contents.  A 
woman  {la  retrousseuse)  cleans  the  pail  and  sweeps  up  from  the  street 
surface  any  refuse  that  may  have  dropped.  Two  men  take  the  pails 
from  the  house  to  the  wagon.  In  1895  about  2200  men  and  560 
wagons  were  engaged  in  this  service.  Of  the  wagons,  71  were  drawn 
by  three  horses,  458  by  two,  and  31  by  one  horse.  It  has  been  pro- 
posed to  make  the  collection  hours  from  midnight  to  6  a.m.  The 
Paris  wagons  contain  an  average  of  4.5  cu.  m.  (5.9  cu.  yd.)  of  refuse, 
or  2.5  tons.  In  the  interior  of  the  city  each  filled  wagon  has  a  route 
of  about  1.5  km.  (0.9  mile)  a  day,  and  is  operated  about  seven  hours. 

In  Zurich,  the  collection  work  is  done  by  the  city.  Collections 
are  made  twice  a  week.  Receptacles  are  placed  at  the  curb.  The 
wagon  bodies  are  divided  into  three  compartments  or  receptacles, 
each  separately  removable.  Their  net  capacity  is  3100  lb.,  and 
there  are  ten  men  and  two  horses  for  each  wagon. 

In  Hamburg,  refuse  is  collected  by  the  city  from  cans  set  out  on  the 
sidewalk.  Collections  are  made  between  11  p.m.  and  9.  a.m.  The 
wagons  carry  2  tons  net,  and  are  hauled  by  two  horses.  Recently, 
some  electric  trucks  have  been  used,  the  power  being  derived  from 
storage  batteries  charged  at  the  city  refuse  incinerator. 

In  Cologne,  collections  are  made  at  night  (10  p.m.  to  6  a.m.) 
and  six  times  a  week.  There  are  52  wagons  for  a  population  of 
400,000.  The  cans  must  be  of  metal,  and  must  be  placed  at  the  curb 
and  removed  before  7  a.m.  Each  can  must  have  a  handle  and  a 
hinged  cover. 

In  Barmen,  the  city  makes  collections  with  one-horse  wagons,  each 
holding  88  cu.  ft.  The  wagon  bodies  are  of  wood,  lined  with  iron,  and 
fitted  with  small  hinged  metal  covers. 


162     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


K.— SPECIFICATIONS 

When  it  is  found  better  to  have  the  collections  made  by  contract, 
and  it  is  desired  to  ask  for  bids  for  the  collection  or  disposal  of  garbage, 
ashes,  rubbish,  etc.,  it  is  necessary  to  advertise  the  prominent  fea- 
tures of  the  proposition.  If  good  bids  are  to  be  expected  from  respon- 
sible firms,  sufficient  time  should  be  allowed  to  permit  prospective  con- 
tractors to  study  the  project  and  become  familiar  with  all  the  con- 
ditions. The  notice  or  advertisement  should  be  published,  not  only 
in  the  local  newspapers,  but  possibly  in  those  of  large  near-by  cities, 
and  also  in  the  technical  journals. 

The  notice  should  state  the  length  of  time  of  the  contract;  the 
available  facilities  which  may  be  furnished  by  the  city,  such  as  the 
use  of  docks,  street-railway  lines,  etc.;  the  approximate  location, 
respectively,  of  transfer  stations,  points  of  delivery,  dumping  sites,  or 
areas  to  be  filled  in;  the  hours  when  the  collection  is  to  be  made,  or 
the  areas  in  which  the  collection  is  to  be  restricted  to  certain  hours. 
Information  should  also  be  given  as  to  payments,  penalties  for  infrac- 
tion of  rules,  etc. 

The  general  instructions  to  bidders  should  contain  complete 
information  as  to  the  preparation  and  submission  of  bids,  and  as  to 
guaranties,  sureties,  bonds,  etc. 

In  the  specifications  the  principal  words  or  terms,  such  as  "  gar- 
bage, "  ashes,"  "  rubbish,"  etc.,  should  be  closely  defined,  so  that 
there  may  be  no  misunderstanding. 

There  should  be  a  statement  in  full  of  the  general  work  the  con- 
tractor will  be  required  to  do;  what  plant  he  shall  furnish,  as  horses, 
carts,  drivers,  tools,  and  implements;  the  limits  of  the  territory  in 
which  the  collection  is  to  be  made,  its  subdivision  into  districts,  and 
points  where  loads  are  to  be  delivered;  the  hours  within  which  the 
work  is  to  be  done,  etc. 

A  paragraph  should  refer  to  city  ordinances  and  State  laws,  and 
provisions  for  procedure,  if  new  ordinances  or  laws  should  have  the 
effect  of  increasing  or  decreasing  the  cost  of  the  work. 

The  method  of  inspecting  the  contractor's  plant  and  his  method 
of  collection,  should  be  specified,  and  also  the  officers  of  the  city  who 
are  to  be  satisfied  with  its  efficiency. 

•  There  must  be  a  clause  in  reference  to  receptacles  for  garbage, 
ashes,  etc.,  for  instance,  that,  if  required,  separate  receptacles  for 
these  materials  will  be  provided  by  householders;  that  other  refuse 
will  be  secured  in  packages;  that  garbage  cans  will  be  water-tight, 
have  close-fitting  covers,  and  be  of  such  a  size  as  to  be  easily  handled 


COLLECTION  163 

by  one  man;  that  receptacles  will  be  placed  where  easily  found,  as 
at  the  curb  line,  etc. 

As  disputes  may  arise  regarding  the  place  where  a  receptacle  is  to 
be  left  for  collection,  the  specifications  should  make  the  method  of 
deciding  them  clear. 

Streets  or  parts  of  streets  are  som^etimes  closed  temporarily,  by  the 
construction  of  sewerage  or  other  works,  and  the  specifications  should 
state  that  the  contractor's  men  are  to  carry  the  garbage,  ashes,  etc., 
to  the  collection  wagons. 

It  may  be  necessary  to  provide  that  on  certain  streets  the  collec- 
tion of  garbage,  ashes,  etc.,  shall  be  made  before  9  a.m.,  also,  that 
special  collections  shall  be  made  in  certain  congested  districts  without 
extra  compensation,  and  that  the  contractor  be  allowed  to  readjust 
his  routes  to  accommodate  such  special  collections. 

It  is  desirable  to  specify  that  the  contractor  shall  visit  or  pass 
through,  wnth  a  sufficient  number  of  carts  or  wagons,  all  present  and 
future  streets,  and  cart  away  all  ashes  and  non-combustible  refuse  at 
least  once  or  tv/ice  a  week,  and  on  such  days  as  may  be  prescribed  by 
the  proper  officer.  It  may  also  be  well  to  specify  a  separate  collection 
of  garbage,  from  May  1st  to  October  1st  every  day  (Sundays  excepted), 
and  from  October  1st  to  May  1st  at  least  three  times  a  week,  on 
alternate  days,  as  fixed  by  the  proper  officer.  It  may  also  be  advisable 
to  indicate  certain  districts  in  which  the  collection  of  garbage,  ashes, 
etc.,  shall  be  made  more  frequently  than  in  others. 

It  should  be  specified  that  the  contractor  shall  issue  to  each  house- 
hold a  card,  in  accordance  with  city  regulations,  stating  the  days  (and 
approximately  the  hours)  when  the  collection  of  garbage,  ashes,  etc., 
will  be  made,  and  that  he  should  give  due  notice  when  changes  in 
the  time  are  made  necessary. 

In  reference  to  carts,  wagons,  etc.,  it  is  advisable  to  specify  in 
the  contract  that  they  shall  be  uniform  in  construction,  and  so  that 
each  may  be  loaded,  carry  its  load,  and  be  unloaded  without  giving 
offense  to  the  public.  Such  vehicles  should  be  strong,  numbered,  and 
marked  to  indicate  the  nature  of  the  material  carried,  kept  in  repair, 
well  painted,  thoroughly  cleaned,  and,  after  each  deUvery,  disinfected 
with  disinfectants  furnished  by  the  contractor,  so  that  it  will  be  free 
from  odor  at  all  times. 

It  should  also  be  specified  that  all  animals  used  in  hauling  carts  or 
wagons  shall  be  strong  and  serviceable  horses  or  mules.  If  gasoline 
or  electric  trucks  are  to  be  used,  certain  information  should  be  given 
as  to  their  capacity,  tires,  wheel  base,  construction,  etc. 

The  inspection  of  all  animals,  vehicles,  and  plant  of  every  descrip- 
tion furnished  by  the  contractor  must  be  provided  for. 


164     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

It  should  be  specified  that  vehicles,  when  in  motion,  shall  be  kept 
tightly  closed,  and,  while  being  filled,  shall  be  opened  as  little  as  pos- 
sible.    A  penalty  may  be  imposed  for  the  infraction  of  rules. 

It  may  be  possible  to  make  arrangements  with  the  street  railway 
service  for  the  transportation  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  between 
certain  points  and  within  certain  specified  hours,  and,  if  this  can  be 
done,  the  specifications  should  contain  the  necessary  provisions  regard- 
ing payments,  etc. 

The  contractor  should  make  a  weekly  or  monthly  report  of  col- 
lection work  done,  quantity  removed,  in  cubic  yards,  and  the  approx- 
imate tonnage  of  loads  in  vehicles  of  different  sizes.  Separate  returns 
should  be  made  of  garbage,  ashes,  non-combustible  refuse,  and  of 
mixed  refuse  or  whatever  may  be  collected. 

It  should  be  specified  that  the  contractor  shall  (or  shall  not)  be 
the  owner  of  all  or  of  certain  parts  of  the  material  collected. 

The  contractor  should  be  required  to  maintain  an  office,  with 
telephone  connection,  within  the  city,  and  be  in  communication  with 
the  proper  city  officers  at  all  times,  in  order  to  receive  and  transmit 
orders,  etc. 

The  city  may  designate  the  places  where  ashes  and  non-combustible 
or  other  clean  material  shall  be  dumped  for  the  purpose  of  grading 
streets,  etc.,  and  provision  should  be  made  for  payment  for  any 
increase  in  the  average  haul  in  such  cases.  Provision  should  be  made 
as  to  arbitration  in  any  case  of  dispute  relative  to  compensation  for 
increase  of  haul. 

Among  the  general  provisions  it  should  be  specified  that  the 
contractor  shall  do  his  work  in  such  a  way  as  to  create  no  nuisance; 
that  all  material  of  any  kind  spilled  or  scattered  on  sidewalks,  gutters, 
or  roadways  shall  be  swept  up  by  him;  that  all  receptacles  or  vessels 
for  garbage,  ashes,  or  other  refuse,  after  being  emptied,  shall  be 
returned,  without  injury,  to  the  places  from  which  they  were  removed. 

The  penalties  to  be  paid  by  the  contractor  for  infraction  of  the 
terms  of  the  contract  and  specifications  should  be  stated  in  detail,  and 
also  the  method  of  making  payments  to  him. 

It  should  be  specified  that  the  contractor  will  not  be  permitted  to 
sublet  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  work,  or  make  any  assignment  of 
the  contract  or  any  interest  therein,  or  of  the  moneys  to  be  paid 
thereon,  without  written  permission  from  the  city  authorities, 

L.— SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  foregoing  statements  show  the  great  need  for  efficiency  and 
economy  in  the  collection  of  refuse  materials,  because  it  is  frequently 


COLLECTION  165 

the  most  important  and  costly  single  element  of  the  entire  refuse 
problem,  and  one  where  improvements,  chiefly  in  equipment,  can 
most  readily  be  made.  The  collection  requires  well-organized  and 
effective  co-operation  between  the  householder  and  collector,  and  a 
cleansing  department  which  operates  along  thoroughly  business-like 
lines. 

The  equipment  should  be  carefully  adjusted  to  the  specific  needs 
of  the  locality,  and  standardized  as  much  as  practicable. 

The  collections  should  be  regular.  They  should  be  along  well- 
planned  routes,  studied  carefully  to  get  the  largest  loads  in  the 
shortest  time  along  the  easiest  roads.  The  frequency  of  collection 
should  depend  on  the  method  of  final  disposal,  on  the  season  of 
the  year,  and  on  the  geographical  location  of  the  town.  The  time  of 
collection  should  be  selected  so  as  to  give  the  least  inconvenience  to 
people  and  traffic  moving  on  the  streets.  The  manner  of  collection 
should  be  such  as  to  remove  the  refuse  from  house  to  wagon  in  the 
least  objectionable  way.  The  loading  should  be  done  so  that  it  will 
produce  the  least  possible  dust  and  noise,  and  the  wagons  should  be 
kept  covered  for  as  much  of  the  time  as  practicable.  The  data  herein 
recorded  furnish  many  experiences  and  suggestions  in  these  directions. 

Depending  on  the  size  of  a  city  and  the  efficiency  of  its  govern- 
ment, the  collection  should  be  made  either  by  permanent  municipal 
forces,  or  by  contract  under  carefully  prepared  and  detailed  specifi- 
cations, and  operated  under  an  efficient  and  experienced  supervision. 
Private  collection  from  hotels  and  restaurants,  and  in  small  towns 
under  equally  good  supervision,  may  be  found  advantageous  occa- 
sionally. 

In  order  to  increase  the  efficiency  and  the  economy  of  the  collec- 
tion, it  would  be  well  to  establish  more  records  for  comparison  on  the 
man-hour  and  ton-mile  basis.  The  labor  employed  should  be  com- 
petent, intelligent,  and  faithful.  Short,  daily  reports  should  be  made 
in  a  simple  but  fairly  complete  manner,  giving  route,  number  of  houses 
visited,  and  kind  of  refuse  collected.  All  complaints  should  be  fol- 
lowed up,  checked,  reasons  ascertained,  and  causes  of  trouble  reme- 
died. All  practicable  incentives  should  be  given  for  effective  work. 
A  card  should  be  kept  at  the  office  for  each  house,  and  collections, 
troubles,  payments,  etc.,  recorded  thereon. 


CHAPTER   IV 
SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 

A.— PURPOSE 

In  large  cities  the  refuse  removal  from  the  houses  does  not  always 
end  with  the  collection  service.  When  the  length  of  haul  for  delivery  is 
excessive,  supplemental  methods  of  transportation  become  more 
economical.  As  cities  grow,  and  congested  districts  spread  out  over 
larger  areas,  the  available  sites  for  disposal  works  are  found  only  at 
greater  and  greater  distances  from  the  center  of  production,  and  the 
greater  becomes  the  need  for  a  secondary  method  of  transportation. 
The  new  problem  which  then  arises  is  the  transportation  of  the  refuse 
from  the  economical  limits  of  collection  haul  to  the  points  of  final 
disposal. 

In  New  York  City  there  was  for  many  years  no  nearer  suitable 
location  for  a  garbage  reduction  plant  than  Barren  Island,  about  20 
miles  from  Manhattan  by  water;  and  transportation  to  the  island  by 
boat  was  necessary.  At  Cleveland,  a  transfer  station  could  be  established 
about  I  mile  from  the  City  Hall,  and  the  favorable  location  for  a  garb- 
age reduction  plant  was  found  to  be  at  Willow,  about  9f  miles  from  the 
center  of  the  city,  and,  therefore,  transportation  by  rail  was  required. 
Chicago,  covering  a  greater  area  than  any  other  city,  also  required 
secondary  means  of  transportation.  A  part  of  its  garbage  is  taken 
by  barge  through  the  Chicago  River  to  a  reduction  plant  in  the 
Stockyards.  Parts  of  the  ashes,  rubbish,  and  street  cleanings  are 
taken,  either  by  trolley  car  or  by  freight  car,  from  transfer  stations  in 
the  city  to  dumps  on  the  outskirts;  and  manure  is  taken  on  freight 
cars  to  farming  districts,  some  distance  from  the  city. 

The  terms  "  Relay  Station,"  "  Transfer  Station,"  or  "  Loading 
Station  "  generally  refer  to  a  station  where  refuse  is  transferred  from 
the  collection  vehicle  to  another  vehicle  which  is  to  transport  it  to  the 
point  of  disposal. 

The  term  "  Loading  Station  "  means  specifically  a  station  on  a  rail- 
road, or  on  a  water  front,  where  railroad  cars,  or  scows,  may  be  loaded 
from  the  relay  vehicles  or  from  the  original  collection  vehicles. 

166 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION  167 

The  transfer  or  relay  of  a  load  may  be  made  either  by  dumping 
from  the  collection  vehicle  into  a  skip  or  other  transfer  arrangement 
from  which  the  refuse  is  in  turn  dumped  into  a  semi-trailer  and  truck, 
or  a  truck  and  four-wheeled  trailer  by  which  the  refuse  is  transported 
to  the  loading  station  or  the  point  of  disposal.  This  arrangement  is 
followed  in  Brooklyn. 

A  second  method  is  by  transferring  to  another  vehicle  the  body 
of  the  vehicle  in  which  the  refuse  is  collected,  as  in  Detroit,  Cincin- 
nati, and  several  other  cities. 

A  third  method  is  by  collecting  in  a  horse-drawn  vehicle  which  can 
be  used  as  a  trailer  behind  a  tractor.  Such  a  vehicle  is  usually  a  four- 
wheeled  trailer  and  is  hauled  to  the  disposal  point,  or  the  loading 
station,  in  trains  of  several  vehicles.  Such  an  arrangement  is  used  in 
Utica,  Buffalo,  Bridgeport,  Memphis,  and  numerous  other  cities. 

These  supplemental  methods  for  transporting  refuse  to  greater  dis- 
tances are  required  chiefly  for  economical  rather  than  sanitary  reasons; 
yet  there  are  also  sanitary  demands.  These  arise  at  the  stations  where 
the  refuse  is  transferred  from  the  collection  wagons  to  cars  or  boats. 
Several  examples  of  reloading  or  transfer  stations,  inappropriately 
designed  and  operated,  could  be  cited  where,  through  improper  design 
or  carelessness,  a  nuisance  has  been  created.  Such  stations  must 
always  be  built  with  special  reference  to  preventing  dust  from  blowing 
away  during  dumping,  offensive  odors  from  polluting  the  air,  and  the 
spilling  of  refuse  between  the  wagons  and  the  cars.  There  should  be 
ample  provision  for  cleaning  every  part  of  the  station,  and  particu- 
larly the  dumping  platforms  and  tracks. 

Refuse  collection  service,  as  already  described,  includes  two  parts: 
the  house-to-house  collection,  and  the  transportation  of  the  material 
from  the  point  of  first  delivery  to  the  place  of  final  disposal.  The 
first  part  constitutes  a  so-called  start-and-stop  service.  The  second 
is  a  straight  run.  The  first  corresponds  somewhat  to  ice-delivery 
service  or  package-delivery  from  a  department  store;  the  second 
corresponds  to  coal-delivery. 

The  economy  of  supplemental  transportation  of  refuse  requires  the 
consideration  of: 

1.  The  cost  of  collection  or  team  haul, 

2.  The  cost  of  transportation  by  supplemental  methods, 

3.  The  available  locations  for  transfer  stations, 

4.  The  available  locations  for  final  disposal. 

A  careful  consideration  of  the  conditions  in  each  city  may  require 
still  other  determinations. 

A  proper  analysis  of  all  the  information  will  determine  very  closely 


168     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

the  best  relation  between  the  lengths  of  collection  haul  and  supple- 
mental haul.  Such  an  analysis  was  made  for  Chicago  by  Messrs. 
Jacobs  and  Cenfield,  engineers  in  the  Efficiency  Division  of  the  Civil 
Service  Commission.  They  determined  the  following  basic  unit  costs 
for  Chicago: 

Average  cost  of  team  haul  per  load-mile,  one 

way $0.50 

Average  cost  of  dumping  one  collection  wagon, 

including  overhead  charges 0 .  35 

Handling  the  refuse  materials  on  trolley  cars  required  the  following 
costs  per  wagon  load: 

Time  of  team  at  transfer  station $0.10 

Operation  of  transfer  station 0 .  38 

Transportation  by  trolley  car 0 .  77 

Handling  at  dump 0 .  08 

Average  cost  of  handling,  per  wagon  load $1 .33 

The  cost  of  transportation  by  trolley  car  includes  the  service  of  a 
motor  car  at  $25  per  day  and  of  two  trailers,  each  at  $6  per  day. 
The  trains  are  assumed  to  make  one  trip  in  2.7  hours. 

Using  these  estimated  unit  costs,  the  relation  between  the  haul  by 
trolley  cars  and  the  team  haul  can  be  determined  from  the  following 
equation,  the  results  being  given  in  cents: 

50x -1-133=502/ +35, 

in  which  x  is  the  length,  in  miles,  of  the  team  haul  from  the  point  of 
collection  to  the  loading  station,  and  tj  is  the  length,  in  miles,  of  team 
haul  from  the  point  of  collection  to  the  point  of  final  disposal.  With 
these  assumptions,  it  is  found  that  for  any  given  value  of  y,  as,  for 
instance,  3  miles,  the  corresponding  value  of  x  will  be  l.£6  miles  less, 
or,  in  this  instance,  1.04  miles.  It  would  be  more  economical,  there- 
fore, to  haul  refuse  directly  to  the  place  of  final  disposal  if  the  differ- 
ence between  the  length  of  haul  to  such  place  of  final  disposal  and  to 
the  loading  station  should  be  less  than  1.96  miles. 

The  same  analysis  may  be  made  in  order  to  determine  approxi- 
mately the  most  economical  locations  for  transfer  stations  in  various 
parts  of  a  city,  which  information  maj^  be  used  as  a  guide  for  the  final 
selection  and  purchase  of  property.  In  Chicago,  such  an  investigation 
resulted  in  the  selection  of  several  transfer  stations.  The  Civil 
Service  Commission  estimated  that  an  annual  saving  of  about  $50,000 
would  result  from  this  supplemental  transportation,  by  avoiding  the 
unusually  long  team  hauls. 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION  1(39 


B.— AVAILABLE  MEANS  AND  METHODS 

The  four  principal  means  for  a  supplemental  transportation  of 
refuse  materials  are:  boat,  steam  railroad,  trolley  car,  and  motor 
truck. 

1.  Boats  and  Deck-scows. — Tlie  use  of  boats  or  barges  is  now  con- 
fined exclusively  to  a  disposal  at  sea  or  on  the  Great  Lakes,  where  the 
garbage  is  dumped  from  10  to  15  miles  from  shore.  At  New  Orleans, 
for  some  years,  garbage  was  boated  a  short  distance  down  the  Mis- 
sissippi River  for  dumping.  Deck-scows  were  used  in  Boston  and 
New  York  many  years  ago;  the  scows  were  taken  to  sea  and  the 
refuse  was  thrown  overboard  by  laborers  using  pitch-forks.  In 
New  York  such  rather  costly  method  was  followed  by  the  use  of  the 
Barney  self-dumping  scow.  This  vessel  was  built  with  a  hinge 
extending  horizontally  along  the  center  line  of  the  boat  at  the  deck 
level.  The  two  halves  of  the  barge  opened  at  the  bottom,  allowing 
the  refuse  stored  in  the  hold  to  drop  into  the  sea. 

A  further  development  was  the  Delahanty  self-propelling,  auto- 
matic dumping  boat.  This  boat  is  a  catamaran  having  pockets 
between  its  two  hulls.  The  pockets  hang  on  hinges,  and  are  opened 
and  closed  by  the  same  power  as  that  used  to  discharge  the  refuse. 
In  this  boat  the  New  York  refuse  was  carried  to  sea  and  discharged. 
The  cost  for  transportation  and  delivery  in  1905  was  about  19  cents 
per  cubic  yard.  The  disposal  of  refuse  materials  by  dumping  at  sea 
or  in  the  Great  Lakes,  however,  is  being  gradually  discontinued, 
because  some  of  the  refuse  eventually  drifts  ashore. 

A  shallow,  hollow,  or  hopper  barge  is  now  used  in  New  York  for 
transporting  garbage  from  the  water-front  transfer  stations  to  the 
reduction  plant  or  to  dump  at  sea.  The  collection  carts  dump  into 
the  barge  over  a  tipping  board  along  the  edge  of  the  wharf,  or  the  truck 
bodies  are  emptied  into  the  scow  by  a  derrick.  The  barges  are  then 
towed  by  a  tug.     Similar  barges  are  used  in  Boston. 

In  Chicago,  deck-scows  are  used  for  the  transportation  of  garbage 
from  the  river-front  transfer  stations  to  the  reduction  plant.  As  the 
garbage  wagons  are  fitted  with  removable  steel  bodies,  and  as  derricks 
are  available  at  the  transfer  stations,  the  wagon  bodies  can  be  lifted 
from  the  running  gear  and  placed  on  the  deck  of  the  scow.  The 
scows  are  of  two  types:  self-propelling,  and  arranged  for  towing. 
At  the  reduction  plant  the  boxes  are  unloaded  by  derricks. 

A  small,  non-propelling,  deck-scow  for  river  service  normally  costs 
from  $6000  to  $10,000.  A  tug  to  haul  the  scow  costs  about  $35,000. 
The  garbage  boxes  can  be  piled  on  the  scows  to  form  two  or  three 
layers.     The  cost  of  transporting  garbage  by  this  method  in  Chicago 


170     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

during  1912  was  about  75  cents  per  ton.  The  work  was  done  under 
contract  by  a  lighterage  company,  and  the  cost  was  thought  to  be  high. 

In  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  wagon  bodies  have  been  transported  on  deck- 
scows  across  the  Milwaukee  River  to  the  garbage  incinerator.  In 
Frankfort,  Germany,  the  full  wagon  bodies,  specially  designed  for  quick 
discharge  of  mixed  refuse  into  the  incinerator,  are  taken  to  the  dis- 
posal plant  down  the  river  on  deck-scows. 

2.  Steam  Railroad  Cars. — ^Steam  railroad  transportation  is  used 
more  frequently  now  than  any  other  method.  Three  types  of 
cars  are  used.  Garbage  is  dumped  into  so-called  metal  "  tank " 
cars,  or  the  entire  wagon  bodies  are  taken  to  the  disposal  works  on 
flat  cars.  Mixed  refuse  in  bulk  is  transported  in  standard  freight 
cars  of  the  "  gondola  "  type,  the  sides  of  which  are  arranged  to  open 
for  unloading. 

Tank  cars  of  special  construction  are  used  in  Cleveland  and 
Columbus  for  the  transportation  of  garbage.  These  cars  have  now 
been  in  service  for  more  than  ten  years,  and  satisfactory  standards 
have  been  developed.  Figs.  37  and  38  show  the  most  recent  design 
for  cars  of  this  type.  They  have  been  placed  on  the  market  by  the 
Koppel  Industrial  Car  and  Equipment  Company,  and  may  be 
described  as  follows: 

The  cars  are  of  steel,  and,  in  every  respect,  are  built  to  conform 
to  standard  M.  C.  B.  requirements  for  transit  on  their  own  wheels  by 
any  railroad,  and  are  equipped  with  Westinghouse  air  brakes.  The 
tank  carried  on  the  car  has  a  semicircular  bottom,  and  rests  on  rockers 
at  the  ends  and  on  rollers  at  intermediate  points,  so  that  it  can  be 
dumped  and  righted  very  easily  by  two  men.  The  tanks  are  made 
with  three  and  four  water-tight  compartments,  each  of  which  has 
two  lids  or  covers  hinged  at  the  center.  The  capacity  of  the  tanks 
is  from  12,000  to  18,000  cu.  ft.  Five  or  more  strong  chains  on  each 
side  of  the  car  keep  the  tank  in  position  during  transportation. 

These  cars,  though  intended  for  garbage,  could  also  be  used  for 
ashes  or  street  sweepings.  They  are  being  used  in  St.  Louis,  San 
Antonio,  and  other  cities. 

The  cost  of  these  cars  at  Cleveland  and  Columbus  in  1914  ranged 
from  $1800  to  $2500  each.  The  cost  of  transportation  varies  with  the 
distance  and  the  local  switching  charges.  In  Cleveland,  the  freight 
cost  averaged  approximately  20  cents  per  ton.  In  Columbus,  the 
cost  per  ton  has  exceeded  30  cents,  although  in  1911  it  was  only  23 
cents. 

Part  of  the  garbage  of  Cleveland  was  formerly  taken  from  the 
loading  station  to  the  reduction  plant  in  wagon  bodies  on  flat  cars. 
The  bodies  were  lifted  from  the  wagon  to  the  car  by  a  traveling  crane. 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 


171 


Tank  Car  for  Supplemental  Transportation  of  Refuse. 


^^■■■WillB 

1 

IffftnVMRVflrTTTn 

AL           C 

nr^fziiiiflBa 

f 

'     -^St  L  GUIS 
N.            18 

■     .I'^V*.*' 

^ 

MM* 

1 

L 

''^^M^^ 

.^.#^' 

^ 

Fig.  37.— Side  View. 


Fig.  38.— End  View  of  Tank  Car  in  Dumping  Position. 


172     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  crane  traveled  on  a  runway  which  extended  over  the  road  and 
over  the  siding  on  which  the  flat  cars  stood.  The  same  method  of 
transportation  is  used  also  in  Minneapolis,  where  the  cost  has  aver- 
aged 24  cents  per  ton  of  garbage,  including  the  operation  and  main- 
tenance of  the  transfer  station.  It  is  also  used  in  Detroit,  the  transfer 
station  having  a  crane  traveling  on  a  runway,  as  at  Cleveland.  The 
wagon  bodies,  however,  are  emptied  into  "  gondola  "  cars,  which  are 
taken  to  the  works  of  the  Detroit  Reduction  Company,  about  20 
miles  distant,  the  city  paying  a  part  of  the  freight. 

Ashes,  rubbish,  and  street  sweepings  have  been  moved  in  Chicago 
on  gondola-type  cars.  The  collection  wagons  dump  directly  into  the 
cars,  and  these  are  taken  away  at  night,  in  a  train  of  four  or  five,  to 
the  dumps  at  the  city  limits.  The  refuse  materials  are  discharged 
through  the  sides  of  the  cars,  and  are  spread  over  the  dump  by  hand. 

MinneapoHs  has  flat  cars  on  which  the  wagon  bodies  are  stacked. 
Pittsburgh  has  cars  with  high  sides.  In  New  Orleans,  the  garbage  is 
taken  in  steel  railroad  cars  from  the  transfer  stations  to  a  large  dump 
outside  the  city.  The  collection  wagons  deliver  it  to  five  such  stations 
along  the  belt  railroad.  The  garbage,  when  dumped  into  the  cars, 
is  treated  with  a  disinfectant,  and  a  tarpaulin  cover  is  tightly  drawn 
over  each  car.  At  the  terminus  the  refuse  is  dumped  into  smaller 
cars,  operated  on  portable  tracks,  and  hauled  to  the  dump  by  gasoline 
engines. 

3.  Trolley  Cars. — Three  types  of  trolley  cars  have  been  used  suc- 
cessfully in  America  for  the  transportation  of  different  refuse  materials. 

First,  in  Brooklyn  fiat  cars  take  ashes  and  rubbish  to  the  dump. 
The  collection  wagons  dump  into  large  steel  bins  set  below  the  dump- 
ing fioor.  When  full  the  bins  are  lifted  by  a  traveling  crane  and  placed 
on  the  cars,  each  being  large  enough  to  hold  four  of  the  bins.  (Fig.  39.) 
Similar  flat  trolley  cars  were  used  in  Chicago  during  the  winter  of  1914 
for  transporting  garbage-wagon  boxes  to  an  emergency  disposal  plant. 
In  both  cases  the  cars  were  fitted  with  motors. 

Secondly,  gondola-type,  side-dumping  cars,  for  trailer  service 
over  street  railwaj^s,  were  used  in  Chicago  for  the  transportation  of 
ashes  and  rubbish  to  the  dumps.  These  cars  have  ridged  bottoms  in 
order  to  facilitate  dumping.  The  sides  are  arranged  with  hinges  at 
the  top,  so  that  they  swing  clear  at  the  bottom.  The  unloading  at 
the  dump  requires  from  thirty  to  sixty  minutes. 

Thirdly,  an  improvement  has  been  made  in  street  railway  self- 
dumping  cars  in  Chicago,  following  the  experience  with  the  gondola 
type.  The  new  type  developed  is  called  "  the  triple-body  steel  dump 
car,  rocker  type."  The  car  consists  of  three  bodies  of  equal  size, 
arranged  to  dump  on  either  side,  and  so  that  each  can  be  dumped 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 


173 


independently  of  the  others.  It  is  used  as  a  trailer.  The  three  bodies, 
together  having  a  capacity  of  25  cu.  yd.  filled  to  a  level,  can  carry  30 
cu.  yd.  of  refuse.  The  over-all  length  of  the  car  is  40  ft.  0  in.,  and 
the  maximum  over-all  width  is  8  ft.  9  in.  The  height  from  the  rail  to 
the  top  of  the  bodies  is  8  ft.  10  in. 

The  cars  are  carried  on  standard  trucks,  suitable  for  street  railway 
service.  They  can  be  emptied  in  a  few  minutes  over  the  side  of  a 
high  dump,  and  so  that  the  track  can  be  easily  maintained  along  the 
edge.    In  practice,  there  has  not  been  much  difficulty  in  dumping  the 


Fig.  39. — Bins  Loaded  on  a  Trolley  Car,  Brooklyn. 

(From  "The  Disposal  of  Municipal  Refuse,"  by  H.  de  B.  Parsons) 


car  bodies,  and  they  have  given  good  service.     The  first  of  these 
cars  bought  by  Chicago  cost  $1600  each. 

Trolley  cars  have  been  used  in  Philadelphia  for  moving  street 
sweepings  to  the  dumps  outside  the  city.  They  were  of  special  design, 
rectangular  in  cross-section,  the  sides  extending  about  7  ft.  above  the 
floor,  giving  the  car  an  unusually  large  capacity.  It  was  found 
that  the  depth  of  the  material  made  it  difficult  to  hold  wet  sweepings 
without  leakage.  On  this  account  they  were  not  as  satisfactory  as  the 
steel  dump  cars.  It  is  generally  necessary  to  raise  the  collection 
wagons  at  the  transfer  station  to   a  high  dumping  platform.     In 


174    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Philadelphia  this  was  done  with  a  hoisting  engine  which  pulled  both 
the  horses  and  wagons  up  an  incline  to  the  platform. 

In  Salt  Lake  City  the  garbage  is  transferred  at  a  special  station, 
within  the  city  limits,  to  specially  constructed  railway  cars  and 
transported  over  the  lines  of  the  Bamberger  Electric  Railroad  Com- 
pany to  the  hog-feeding  farm  of  the  contractors,  7  miles  north  of  the 
city,  where  a  switch  runs  directly  into  the  main  building.  All  other 
waste  matter  is  delivered  at  a  dumping  ground  within  3  miles  of  the 
business  district. 

4.  Motor  Trucks. — With  recent  advances  in  the  construction  of 
motor-driven  vehicles,  the  transportation  of  refuse  materials  by  this 
method  has  increased.  The  principal  types  are  the  motor-driven 
running  gear,  with  the  refuse-containing  body  attached,  and  the  tractor 
type,  where  the  body  is  carried  on  a  separate  running  gear  drawn  by 
the  motor.  A  flat  body  for.  carrying  garbage  boxes  or  house  cans  is 
also  used.  Motor  trucks  in  refuse  disposal  service  were  first  used  in 
America  in  Seattle,  and  later  in  Atlanta,  and  their  use  is  extending. 

Many  makes,  types,  and  sizes  of  trucks  are  in  use,  with  either  gaso- 
line or  electric  motive  power.  The  bodies  are  built  to  unload  by 
dumping  at  the  rear,  or  by  using  a  rope  network,  as  at  Calgary. 
With  a  tractor,  the  trailers  can  be  built  for  bottom-  or  side-dumping. 

The  use  of  motor  trucks  for  transporting  refuse  from  a  transfer 
station  to  a  point  of  disposal  was  recommended  in  Chicago,  and  the 
cost  of  operation  was  estimated  at  20  cents  per  ton-mile.  For  gar- 
bage transportation,  a  motor  truck  was  considered  with  a  flat  top  on 
which  collection  wagon  bodies  were  placed  by  a  derrick.  It  was 
estimated  that  motor  trucks  on  this  service  could  be  relied  on  to  make 
40  miles  per  day.  Similar  service  by  motor  truck  was  considered 
for  Boston  by  Mr.  John  Primrose,  Engineer  of  the  Power  Specialty 
Company. 

In  selecting  the  size,  it  should  be  remembered  that  a  6-ton  vehicle 
costs  no  more,  in  labor  to  run  it,  than  one  of  4  tons  capacity,  and  less 
time  per  ton  is  used  at  each  end  of  the  journey,  in  getting  into  posi- 
tion, and  also  in  loading  and  unloading. 

Tractors  have  not  as  yet  been  used  much  for  refuse  transporta- 
tion, though  they  have  shown  lower  costs  than  motor  trucks  for 
a  similar  service  of  hauling  stone,  sand,  and  gravel. 

Mr.  Walter  M.  Curtis,  Manager  of  the  Engineering  Department 
of  the  New  England  Audit  Company,  in  1913,  made  a  careful 
analysis  of  the  cost  of  haul  for  various  motive  powers.  The  results 
of  his  investigation  are  shown  in  Figs.  40  and  41.  The  costs  are  based 
on  300  working  days  per  year,  with  the  reservation  that,  where  work 
is  unsteady,  and  there  is  much  idle  time,  the  cost  per  ton-mile  will  be 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 


175 


increased  very  materially.  In  the  case  of  long  hauls,  where  the  dis- 
tance is  too  great  for  horses  to  make  a  daily  trip,  motor  transportation 
has  many  advantages,  and  will  probably  increase. 

A  careful  analysis  of  the  use  of  motor  trucks  and  tractors  for 
hauling  refuse  and  street-repair  materials  was  made  in  1913  by  Jacobs 


18 

<a 
Ol6 

Wt 

V 

CU 

"3 

a 

12 


// 

■/ 

/ 

4 

V 

/ 

/ 

y 

// 

f/ 

4\ 

\  / 

/ 

n 

s  /  / 

Ay 

y/ 

/ 

y 

A 

X 

/ 

A 

'^/ 

y 

/^ 

^9. 

y 

A 

^ 

'/ 

Z' 

^ 

y 

wk 

10  20  30  40  50  eo  70  80  90  100 

Average  Dally  Mileage 

Fig.  40. — Comparison  of  Total  Haulage  Costs  for  Trucks,  Tractors,  etc. 


and  Cenfield  for  the  Chicago  Civil  Service  Commission.  They 
reviewed  the  available  data  at  some  length,  and  compiled  the  charts 
shown  here  as  Figs.  42  and  43.     The  results  are  quoted  as  follows: 

"Inquiries  have  been  made  as  to  the  adaptability  and  economy  of  motor 
trucks  in  connection  with  the  hauling  of  city  refuse  and  crushed  stone  and  other 
material  for  the  repair  of  streets  and  alleys.  Tests  have  been  made  on  va- 
rious kinds  of  motor  trucks  in  different  cities  of  the  coimtry  with  varying  results, 


176     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

and  inquiries  have  been  directed  to  different  municipalities  and  motor  truck 
companies  and  several  tests  made  in  this  city  to  determine  the  following : 

"1.  The  relative  economy  of  hauling  refuse  and  street  repair  materials 

by  motor  trucks  and  by  teams. 
"2.  The  kind  of  motor  truck  best  adapted  for  this  purpose. 
"3.  The  practicability  and  economy  of  discarding    present    equipment 

and  the  purchase  of  motor  trucks. 

50 


CU    25 


20 


6 

1 

1 

1 

\ 

1\ 

\  \ 

1 

\ 

\ 

1 

\ 

v. 

\ 

\1 

^ 

^ 

^ 

^...a^Toa 

^>ucfr 

\ 

^ 

^^~~~~^. 

_  5-Ton 
-Ton  Tr,, 

Truck 

— 

■ 

W-Ton  T 

6- Ton 
factor 

Tractor 

30  40  50  60 

Average  Daily  Mileage 


Fig.  41. — Comparison  of  Haulage  Costs  of  Trucks,  Tractors,  etc. 


"The  matter  of  the  relative  economy  in  the  use  of  motor-driven  and  horse- 
drawn  vehicles  for  different  lengths  of  haul  has  been  treated  by  Mr.  R.  T.  Dana, 
Member,  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  who  shows  the  variation  in 
cost  per  ton  for  different  lengths  of  haul  from  one-quarter  mile  to  ten  miles 
and  the  savings  that  would  result  in  the  use  of  motor-drawn  vehicles.  Follow- 
ing are  his  summary  figures : 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 


177 


Length  of  haul, 
in  miles 

Cost  peh  Ton 

COBT    J'KK    TON-.MILE 

I'ercentage  of 

saving  by 

using 

motor-drawn 

vehicle 

Horse- 
drawn 
vehicle 

Motor- 
drawn 
vehicle 

Horse- 
drawn 
vehicle 

Motor- 
drawn 
vehicle 

1 

$0.15 
0.22 

0.32 
0.50 
0.70 
0.90 
1.09 
1.29 
1.48 
1.68 
1.88 
2,07 

$0.19 
0.24 
0.32 
0.48 
0.62 
0.79 
0,96 
1,12 
1.28 
1.44 
1.60 
1.77 

$0,640 
0.440 
0.320 
0.250 
0.233 
0.225 
0.219 
0.215 
0.211 
0.210 
0.209 
0.207 

$0,760 
0,480 
0,320 
0,240 
0,207 
0,198 
0,192 
0,187 
0.183 
0.180 
0.178 
0.177 

-18.8 
-  9.1 
+  0,0 
+  4.0 
+  11,2 
+  12.0 
+  12.3 
+  13.0 
+  13.2 
+  14.3 
+  14.7 
+  14,7 

A 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

"Similar  investigations  have  been  made  at  the  Massachusetts  Institute  of 
Technology,  and  the  following  summary  shows  the  relative  cost  of  operating 
the  horse-drawn,  gasoline,  and  electric  commercial  vehicles,  based  upon  the 
different  sizes  of  vehicles: 


Size  of  vehicle, 
in  tons 

Nu-MBER  OF  Miles  Traveled  fob  Expenditure  op  $1.00 

Horse-drawn 

Gasoline-driven 

Electric-driven 

1 

2 

3.9 
2.9 
2.2 
1.7 

3.6 
2.6 
2.3 
1.9 

4.3 
3.1 

2.7 
2.2 

3| 

5 

"In  estimating  the  probable  economy  of  the  transportation  of  pavement 
material  by  the  use  of  motor  trucks,  the  following  assumptions  have  been 
made,  based  upon  the  experiences  and  requirements  in  this  city. 

"1.  That  five-ton  trucks  will  be  used. 

"2.  That  these  trucks  be  equipped  with  dump  bodies. 

"3.  That  the  time  required  for  loading  and  unloading  will  be  five  minutes. 

"4.  That  each  truck  will  be  in  actual  use  seven  hours  per  day,  this  being 

liberal  for  necessary  delays  in  traveling,  loading,  etc. 
"5.  That  an  average  speed  of  seven  miles  per  hour  can  be  maintained  by 

electric  motors;  eight  and  a  half  miles  by  gasoline  trucks. 
"6.  That  the  other  charges  entering  into  the  cost  of  operation  are  the 

same  as  the  assumptions  for  three-ton  trucks  estimated  for  garbage 

service. 


178     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"The  following  assumptions  were  considered  in  estimating  the  economy  of 
the  use  of  horse-drawn  vehicles  for  hauling  the  same  materials: 

"  1.  Capacity  of  stone  wagon 7,500  lb. 

Capacity  of  asphalt  wagon 8,900  ' ' 

"2.  Time  required  for  loading  or  unloading 5  min. 

"3.  Average  speed  of  wagon 2.7  miles  per  hour. 

"4.  Cost  per  day  (wagon,  team,  and  driver) $6 .  00 


/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

''  1 

/ 

/ 

/ 

^ 

-^-l 

/ 

A? 

-^ 

y 

z 

/ 

.cv     ^. 

A 

V 

'. 

^^ 

.^Zp 

T^/'o" 

^ 

r<' 

V 

/ 

t 

/  /^ 

^S1 

< 

/ 

i^ 

^"s->n,^ 

■f^ 

/ 

/ 

''4 

m 

'''<-. 

e. 

4^"^ 

<^„^4 

.i^ 

/o,;^ 

■ 

<^y/^ 

V| 

^ 

s° 

A^b"' 

y 

/c 

3 

<% 

/ 

/A^ 

/ 

/^^ 

<^y 

/ 

0 

/ 

/ 

,^/ 

^ 

/ 

/ 

A 

V 

V 

v^ 

/ 

/ 

y 

\y 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

^/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

,' 

/ 

^.< 

-^ 

/ 

2 

/ 

/, 

1/ 

/ 

'  ' 

// 

/ 

^/ 

'   ./ 

V 

- 

/ 

/ 

"/' 

^, 

< 

V 

/ 

/, 

/ 

/ 

/, 

/ 

/ 

', 

/ 

/ 

// 

/ 

/ 

4 

/ 

^ 

/ 

/ 

'^ 

/ 

A 

/, 

/ 

< 

-^^ 

y 

/ 

« 

/ 

V' 

V 

_j 

_ 

1  2  „  ^3  4  5  6  7  8 

Haul,  in  Miles 

Fig.  42. — Haulage  Costs  for  Horse-drawn,  Gasoline,  and  Electric  Vehicles 
of  Three  Tons  Capacity,  for  Hauling  Garbage. 
(Chicago  Civil  Service  Commission), 


"Analyses  of  the  estimates  have  been  made,  and  curves,  showing  miles  per 
day,  cost  per  ton,  and  cost  per  ton  delivered  in  street  work,  based  on  the 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 


179 


above  assumptions,  show  that  the  use  of  motor  trucks  is  more  economical  than 
horse-drawn  vehicles  when  the  same  are  used  for  a  period  of  at  least  300  days 
per  year  in  the  transportation  of  crushed  stone,  asphalt,  and  other  street 
repair  materials.  If  the  period  in  which  the  transportation  equipment  Ls  used 
is  less  than  180  days  each  year,  which  is  the  minimum  period  in  which  street 
repair  work  will  be  made  during  any  year,  the  use  of  horse-drawn  asphalt 
wagons  is  more  economical,  and  the  use  of  horse-drawn  wagons  for  hauling 
crushed  stone  is  less  economical  than  any  type  of  motor  truck.     The  curves 


60 

30 

58 

29 

56 

28 

64 

27 

52 

26 

60 

26 

5  6         7  8         9 

Length  of  Haul  iu  Miles 

Fig.  43. — Comparison  of  Miles  per  Day,  Cost  per  Ton-mile,  and  Cost  per 
Ton  Delivered,  for  Hauls  of  Different  Lengths,  for  Street  Repair  Work. 

(Chicago  Civil  Service  Commission.) 


further  show  that,  in  order  that  the  cost  in  using  electric  trucks  instead  of 
asphalt  wagons  be  equalized,  the  electric  truck  must  operate  at  least  230  days 
each  year,  and  the  gasoline  truck  must  operate  at  least  260  days  each  year. 
Under  favorable  conditions,  the  motor  trucks  would  be  more  economical  than 
horse-drawn  vehicles  for  the  transportation  of  crushed  stone  and  asphalt,  and 
the  use  of  electric  trucks  will  probably  show  a  saving  of  approximately  25%. 
"The  study  of  the  economy  and  adaptability  of  the  use  of  motor  trucks  for 


180    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

hauling  garbage  and  other  city  refuse,  as  shown  above  and  in  the  curves  (Figs. 
42  and  43),  has  led  to  the  following  conclusions: 

"1.  That  at  the  present  prevailing  cost  of  team  hire,  the  saving  in  the  use 
of  electric  motor  trucks  for  hauling  garbage,  in  such  wards  as  have  a  consider- 
able haul,  would  amount  to  5 . 1%  of  the  total  cost  of  removing  such  garbage 
by  teams. 

"2.  That,  if  the  cost  of  teams  were  increased  to  $6.00  per  day,  the  total 
estimated  saving  by  using  motor  trucks  for  hauling  would  be  about  $15,775 
per  year,  or  12.3%  of  the  total  estimated  cost  of  teams  at  $6.00  per  day. 

"3.  That,  inasmuch  as  these  estimates  are  computed  on  the  eight-hour 
day  basis,  and  that  the  present  working  period  of  garbage  teams  rarely  amounts 
to  eight  hours  per  day,  and  often  the  working  period  is  as  low  as  six  hours,  that 
the  saving  which  could  be  expected  would  exceed  the  percentage  given. 

"4.  That  either  the  gasoline  or  electric  power  truck  can  handle  the  haul- 
ing of  garbage  with  comparative  ease  and  with  approximately  equal  satis- 
faction. 

"5.  That  the  more  economical  power  truck  has  been  found  to  be  electric. 
This  is  governed  in  a  measure  by  the  low  rate  of  cost  of  electrical  energy  from 
the  Sanitary  District  to  the  city  for  night  power,  and  the  fact  that  the  col- 
lected data  on  the  electric  truck  have  shown  lower  per  cent  rates  for  depre- 
ciation, maintenance,  repair,  and  insurance  than  for  the  gasoline  truck." 

Table  60  gives  some  costs  of  transporting  garbage  by  various 
agencies  and  in  different  cities  during  the  period  from  1917  to  1920. 


Table  60. — Costs  of  Transporting  Garbage 

(From  Report  by  S.  A.  Greeley  on  Garbage  Collection  and  Disposal  for  Toledo,  Ohio) 


City 

Year 

Method 

Tons  of 
garbage 

Cost  of 
transporta- 
tion per  ton 

Chicago,  lU 

Baltimore,  Md 

Detroit,  Mich 

Washington,  D.  C 

Pittsburgh,  Pa 

Indianapolis,  Ind 

Dayton,  Ohio 

Grand  Rapids,  Mich. .  .  . 

Utica,  N.  Y 

Wilkes-Barre,  Pa 

1919 
1920 
1920 
1919 
1920 
1919 
1919 
1917 
1919 
1918 

Barge 

Barge 

Railroad 

Railroad 

Railroad 

Railroad 

Railroad 

Railroad 

Tractor  trucks 

Truck 

786 

53,258 
60,000 
16,587 
11,360 
10,500 
8,400 
7,500 

$0,962 
0.30 
0.75 
0.68 
0.60 
0.26 
0.55 
0.45 
1.43 
1.60 

A  brief  summary  of  the  use  made  of  motor  trucks  for  supplemental 
transportation  in  a  few  other  cities  follows: 

New  York,  N.  Y. — The  Department  of  Street  Cleaning  operates  a 
number   of   5-ton,   rear-dump,    gasoline   trucks.     The   tractor-trailer 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORT  A  TION 


181 


system  is  used,  and  its  equipment  includes  7-ton  garbage  wagons 
having  a  low  loading  height,  and  8-ton  and  15-ton  ash  and  rubbish 
wagons.  The  15-ton  wagon  is  built  for  a  speed  of  8  miles  an  hour. 
It  is  fitted  with  steel  tires  for  summer  use,  and  in  winter  rubber  tires 
are  put  on  the  front  wheels.  The  bulk  of  the  load,  however,  is  car- 
ried on  the  steel   tires   (Figs.   44   and  45). 

Figs.  46  and  47  illustrate  the  demountable  equipment  used  in  New 
York,  whereby  an  expensive  piece  of  machinery — the  truck — is  kept 
at  work  all  the  year  round,  instead  of  lying  idle.     In  winter  it  is  used  in 


Fig.  44. — Eight-compartment  Garbage  Truck,  New  York  City. 

the  collection  of  refuse  and  in  summer  for  sprinkling  or  flushing  streets. 
The  receptacles  for  refuse  are  removed  from  the  chassis,  and  the 
water  tank,  with  the  necessary  piping,  is  substituted. 

Figs.  48  and  49  illustrate  the  Read  winter  dump  body  mounted  on  a 
7^-ton  Mack  truck.  It  is  fitted  with  metallic  covers,  and  has  a 
special  automatic  tail  gate  which  is  thrown  up  over  the  body  and 
out  of  the  way  when  dumping.  As  an  indication  of  the  principle 
that  as  much  work  as  possible  should  be  obtained  from  such  expensive 
machinery,  it  may  be  stated  that  twelve  of  these  units  have  been  in 
continuous  service  for  sixteen  hours,  or  more,  a  day,  for  more  than 
three  years. 


182     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Fig.  50  shows  an  8-cu.  yd.  refuse  collection  body  on  a  BJ-ton 
Mack  truck,  as  used  by  the  New  York  Department  of  Street  Cleaning. 
This  body  is  mounted  on  a  chassis  which  is  designed  for  use  with  a 
demountable  flushing  equipment. 

Detroit,  Mich. — In  the  collection  of  garbage  in  Detroit,  an  inex- 
pensive, one-horse,  four-wheeled,  running  gear  was  used  (Fig.  51). 
The  body  is  a  rectangular  steel  box,  holding  60  cu.  ft.,  and  having  a 
canvas  cover.  One  man,  one  horse,  and  one  wagon,  with  the  box 
body,  comprises  one  unit.    When  the  box  is  filled  it  is  driven  to  the 


Fig.  45. — Twenty-five  Yard  Motor  Trailer,  New  York  City. 


transfer  station,  where  the  body  is  lifted  from  the  wagon  by  a  special 
rig  and  deposited  in  a  pile  of  such  bodies  to  await  the  arrival  of  the 
relay  vehicle.  An  empty  body  is  then  placed  on  the  collection  run- 
ning gear  to  go  back  for  another  load. 

Seattle,  Wash. — The  Department  of  Health  has  operated  one 
5-ton,  gasoline  truck  for  carrying  garbage  from  a  transfer  station  to 
the  place  of  final  disposal.  The  truck  carries  a  7-cu.  yd.,  rear-dump 
body. 

Calgary,  Alia. — This  city  operates  a  number  of  electric  trucks, 
covering  a  variety  of  services.  The  Sanitary  Department  has  a  5-ton 
truck  with  an  extra  battery  at  the  rear.  This  truck  is  used  with  three 
trailers,  each  having  a  capacity  of  about  16  cu.  yd.     The  garbage  is 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 


183 


drawn  by  one-horse  carts  to  transfer  stations  and  there  discharged 
into  the  trailers.     A  rope  network  is  attached   to  cover  the  inside  of 


Figs.  46  and  47.— Demountable  Equipment  of  Motor  Iruck,  New  York  City. 

the  trailer  body.  The  trailers  are  picked  up  by  the  truck  at  certain 
times  each  day  and  hauled  to  the  incinerator.  At  the  incinerator,  a 
traveling  crane  picks  up  the  rope  network  holding  the  garbage,  and 


184     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

dumps  it  into  a  storage  pit.     The  5-ton  truck  is  said  to  have  replaced 
six  teams.     Its  cost  was  S5050  (f.o.b.  Calgary)  complete  with  battery. 


Figs.  48  and  49. — Read  Winter  Dump  Body  on  7|-ton  Mack  Truck,  New 

York  City. 


In  Brooklyn,  Bridgeport,  Calgary,  and  other  cities,  trains  of  trailers 
are  used  in  supplemental  transportation.     Fig.  52  shows  a  train  of 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 


185 


three  Lee  trailers  which  are  being  hauled  around  a  curve  and  entering 
a  narrow  alley,  thus  demonstrating  their  perfect  tracking  and  steer- 


FiG.  50. — Eight-yard  Refuse  Collection  Body  on  6|-ton  Mack  Truck,  New 

York  City. 


Fig.  51. — One-horse  Wagon,  with  Removable  Box  Body,  Detroit,  Mich. 


ing.  These  trailers  are  of  the  drop-frame,  reversible  type,  and  are 
dumped  at  either  side.  Each  trailer  is  drawn  by  horses  and  used  for 
house-to-house  collection.     At  certain  times  and  places  three  or  four 


186    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

of  these  trailers  are  picked  up  by  a  motor-truck  and  hauled  to  the 
point  of  final  disposal. 


Feg.  52. — Lee  Trailers,  Pulled  by  Tractor,  Entering  Narrow  Alley. 


Fig.  53. — Light  Motor  Truck  for  Refuse  Collection,  Evanston,  111. 

Some  trucks  have  also  been  used  for  transporting  garbage  to  hog 
farms  at  the  National  Army  Camps.  A  number  are  used  for  emer- 
gency collection  service,  as  at  Evanston,  111.  (Fig.  53). 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION  187 

A  study  of  about  60  typical  motor  routes  by  the  Department  of 
Agriculture  in  1918  indicated  that  1  gal.  of  gasoline  would  be  sufficient 
to  enable  a  2-ton  truck  to  travel  from  5  to  7  miles,  a  3-ton  truck  from 
4  to  6  miles,  and  a  5-ton  truck  from  3  to  5  miles.  The  depreciation 
might  be  estimated  roughly  at  from  15  to  25%,  being  obviously  great- 
est for  the  greatest  annual  mileage.  It  varies  also  with  different 
makes,  being  correspondingly  less  with  the  better  vehicles. 

The  Bureau  of  Markets  shows  a  range  of  from  1  to  4  cents  per  mile 
for  the  cost  of  solid  tires,  for  different  loads.  Pneumatic  tires  were 
found  to  cost  more,  but  the  annual  depreciation  and  repairs  were 
usually  less. 

To  estimate  the  total  cost  there  should  be  added  garage  rent, 
taxes,  insurance,  license,  and  office  overhead  expenses. 

C— TRANSFER  AND  LOADING  STATIONS 

The  structures  for  transfer  and  loading  stations  are  of  several 
types.  Some  have  an  elevated  platform  with  inclined  approaches, 
the  wagons  being  dumped  from  the  platforms  into  freight  cars,  boats, 
etc.  The  platform  should  be  attractively  housed  and  have  concrete 
floors.  There  should  be  an  ample  supplj^  of  water  for  washing,  and 
good  drainage.  Usually,  these  conditions  have  not  received  suf- 
ficient attention.  Some  stations  have  a  crane  for  picking  up  loaded 
wagon  bodies  and  either  emptying  them  into  or  placing  them  on 
another  vehicle  for  further  transportation. 

Such  stations  sometimes  have  critical  locations  and  require  special 
provisions  and  care.  In  New  York,  Chicago,  Baltimore,  and  Boston, 
there  are  water-front  locations  for  boat  or  barge  transportation. 
Some  cities  have  railroad  transportation.  Some  stations  are  housed; 
in  others  the  platforms  are  not  covered. 

In  Detroit  the  transfer  station,  Fig.  54,  is  a  building  partly  walled 
in  with  brick,  and  having  a  galvanized-iron  roof.  It  contains  an  elec- 
tric hoist  running  on  overhead  I-beams.  Periodically,  according  to  a 
regular  schedule,  a  6-ton  Mack  truck  and  four-wheeled  trailer,  Fig.  55, 
go  from  the  transfer  station,  where  the  full  wagon  bodies  have  been 
received,  to  a  loading  station  at  the  railroad,  where  they  are  emptied 
into  railroad  cars  for  transportation  to  the  disposal  works.  The 
empty  wagon  bodies  are  then  taken  back  to  the  transfer  station  and 
exchanged  for  another  load. 

The  loading  station  at  Detroit  is  a  galvanized-iron  shed,  built 
over  the  railroad  tracks,  and  has  several  electric  cranes  operated  on 
overhead  I-beams.  These  cranes  lift  the  wagon  bodies  from  the 
truck  and  trailer,  using  a  rig  similar  to  that  at  the  transfer  station,  and 


188     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

convey  them  to  a  pile  or  directly  to  the  cars,  into  which,  by  a  simple 
overturning,  they  are  emptied. 

In  Columbus  there  is  a  transfer  station  (Fig.  56)  of  a  good  type 
for  handhng  garbage.  It  was  designed  and  built  by  Osborn,  and 
is  in  a  central  location,  near  the  city  stables.  Its  cost  was  about 
$15,000.  The  collection  wagons  drive  up  an  incline  with  a  6%  grade, 
then  back  up  against  a  bumper  board,  and  dump  over  an  apron 
into  steel  tank  cars  below.     The  width  of  the  platform  within  the 


Fig.  54. — Transfer  or  Relay  Station,  Detroit,  Mich. 


building  is  24  ft.,  which  gives  room  for  a  two-horse  team  to  turn  and 
dump.  The  wagons  are  hinged  about  the  rear  axle,  and  are  dumped 
by  using  a  pulley  traveling  on  I-beams  over  the  bumper  board.  As 
the  dumping  causes  some  spilling  of  garbage  about  the  trucks,  it  has 
been  necessary  to  pave  the  space  around  and  between  the  tracks, 
in  order  that  it  may  be  cleaned  easily.  Below  the  dumping  platform 
there  is  a  blacksmith  shop  and  a  storage  room  for  tools.  The  building 
is  of  brick  and  reinforced  concrete. 

The  water-front  transfer  stations  in  New  York  (Fig.  57)  consist  of 
wide  open  wharves,  fitted  with  bumper  boards  at  each  side.  The 
scows  are  moored  alongside  the  wharf,  several  feet  below  the  level  of 


SUl'l'LEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION 


189 


Fig.  55. — Six-ton  Truck  and  Five-ton  Trailer,  Detroit,  Mich. 


Fig.  56.— Garbage  Loading  Station,  Showing  Inclined  Driveway,  Columbus, 

Ohio. 


190     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


■ftk':'^ 

twsaaroEt^^i^iijaji 

nxaMineofimamff^JMUnygg^lg^^^^^ 

/ 

^^^■^H 

• 

1  >  -f  J.  \  - 

) 
1 
( 

-     '"s.  ^-    '  ; 

I 

g^f^ 

W^^M 

i.?         . 

4«H 

-      \v 

t    ■              "       ■ 
i 

>< 

'■'                          -            — !      ■" 

''^'i:-^1i:i&^^^      ■ 

I:      ;■■      "    " 

V   1 

R'l|;«fl 

1        9 

'^'^^^^H 

||;i      fl 

--u^^^^^^^HI 

ra?  >'"''              '^HHI 

-Ib^HB 

i        WKH 

.    -i_mmf 

i               -SH 

J^^^l 

1  ,^?^^^"W> 

^^H 

1 

^,.. 

'  -'i^rnTri^TTi     ■^.,..--„.„.„  '■  '■ 

SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION  191 

the  dumping  floor.  The  collection  carts  back  up  against  the  bumper 
and  dump  over  the  edge  into  the  scows.  No  protection  is  provided 
against  the  escape  of  dust  and  odors. 

In  Chicago  and  Milwaukee  the  transfer  stations  along  the  river, 
for  transferring  garbage  boxes  from  the  wagons  to  the  scows,  consist 
of  open  platforms  on  whjch  there  are  derricks.  The  hoisting  engines 
operating  the  derricks  are  housed,  but  otherwise  no  protection  is 
provided.  In  Chicago,  a  transfer  station  for  ashes  and  rubbish, 
built  at  15th  and  Loomis  Streets,  consisted  of  a  long  platform,  60  ft. 
wide,  accessible  from  both  ends  by  easy  inclines.  Switch  tracks  from 
the  trolley  lines  were  built  on  both  sides,  and  the  wagons  were  dumped 
into  cars  from  both  sides  of  the  platform.  The  latter  was  not  enclosed, 
and  no  provision  was  made  to  prevent  the  escape  of  dust  and  odors. 

The  experience  gained  with  this  transfer  station  led  the  engineers 
of  the  Chicago  Civil  Service  Commission  to  recommend  one  of  a  new 
type.  (Fig.  58.)  This  new  station  is  reached  by  an  incline  with  a 
5%  grade,  and  is  left  by  an  incline  with  an  8%  grade.  The  switch 
tracks  are  carried  through  the  building  under  the  dumping  floor. 
Trap-doors  are  provided  in  this  floor  so  that  bottom-dumping  wagons 
can  drop  their  loads  directly  into  the  cars  below.  Rear-dump  wagons 
can  also  deliver  refuse  through  these  trap-doors.  The  dumping  floor 
is  enclosed  in  a  house  fitted  with  large  steel  dust  curtains  at  the  run- 
way entrance  and  exit.  It  is  estimated  that  such  a  transfer  station, 
with  a  capacity  of  35  wagons  per  hour,  could  be  built  for  $12,000 
(1913).  This  price  is  for  a  structure  which  is  not  very  substantial  or 
attractive. 

A  transfer  station  of  brick  and  reinforced  concrete,  two  stories 
high  and  46  by  146  ft.  in  plan,  was  built  in  Regina,  Assin.,  at  a  cost 
of  $16,000.  A  siding  of  the  municipal  street  railway  runs  through  the 
building  at  the  ground  level,  and  on  this  are  run  5-cu.  yd.  steel  dump- 
cars  especially  designed  for  transporting  refuse.  The  loaded  col- 
lection wagons  reach  the  second  floor  by  an  approach  or  ramp,  and 
dump  directly  into  the  cars. 

The  following  requirements  are  found  in  the  contract  and  specifi- 
cations of  the  City  of  Boston  for  the  transportation  of  refuse  from 
inland  and  water-front  stations: 

From  Inland  Stations. — Refuse  is  to  be  transported  in  metal  recep- 
tacles, hauled  by  horses  or  motors,  or  by  steam  railroads  or  street  rail- 
ways. Garbage  must  be  carried  in  steel  receptacles  or  tanks,  and 
each  must  have  an  air-tight  cover  to  be  fastened  down  with  swing 
bolts  as  soon  as  the  receptacle  is  filled.  The  garbage  is  to  be  dis- 
charged through  an  opening  in  the  receptacle  similarly  fastened  and 
sealed.     Receptacles  for  transporting  other  refuse  are  to  be  modified 


192    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


SUPPLEMENTAL  TRANSPORTATION  193 

in  design  so  that  they  may  be  loaded  and  discharged  rapidly.  They 
are  to  be  covered  and  secured  so  as  to  prevent  the  escape  of  flying 
material  or  disagreeable  odors. 

From  Water-front  Stations. — Refuse  is  to  be  transported  in  scows 
divided  into  water-tight  and  air-tight  compartments  so  as  to  carry 
as  much  of  the  refuse  as  possible  below  the  water  line,  and  thus 
lessen  the  danger  of  overturning  or  spilling  the  refuse.  The  scows 
are  to  have  heavy  coamings,  around  the  outside  of  the  hold  space, 
high  enough  to  prevent  any  material  from  spilling  overboard.  The 
usual  pumps,  capstans,  winches,  and  all  modern  appliances  are  to  be 
provided. 

When  in  summer  the  garbage  has  become  several  days  old,  when 
at  the  station,  and  foul  odors  and  fly  breeding  are  to  be  prevented, 
then,  if  the  garbage  is  not  to  be  fed,  it  is  advisable  to  use  a  disinfect- 
ant, such  as  a  cresol  solution,  kerosene  oil,  or  a  solution  of  gas-house 
waste. 

D.— EUROPEAN  DATA 

The  use  of  supplemental  methods  for  transportation  and  transfer 
stations  have  not  been  found  as  necessary  in  Europe  as  in  America. 
The  reason  is  that  in  most  European  cities  the  refuse  is  mixed,  and  is 
disposed  of  by  incineration.  As  incinerators  can  be  built  within  the 
cities,  the  length  of  haul  is  short,  thus  obviating  the  necessity  for 
supplemental  transportation.  Within  the  London  Metropolis,  for 
instance,  there  are  fourteen  local  incinerators. 

In  England,  petrol  was  used  extensively  for  supplemental  trans- 
portation during  the  war  and  since.  The  steam  wagon  seems  to  be 
going  out  of  use.  The  electric  wagon  has  come  to  the  fore  during 
the  past  few  years.  It  does  its  best  work  on  level  roads  and  when 
not  working  above  its  capacity.  It  is  found  to  be  economical  in 
operation  if  of  a  sufficiently  powerful  type.  It  is  used  for  refuse 
removal  in  Southport  and  Blackpool. 

In  Paris  there  are  five  local  incinerators.  Some  of  the  refuse  is 
loaded  on  scows  at  the  shores  of  the  Seine  and  some  is  removed  on 
street  or  steam  railroads.  The  freight  charges  average  0.05  franc 
per  ton  hauled  1  km.  Motor  trucks  have  been  used  in  Paris,  Ham- 
burg, and  in  other  places.  Barge  transportation  on  the  river  Main 
has  been  used  for  the  Frankfort  mixed  refuse. 

E.— SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  chief  factor  in  deciding  on  the  adoption  of  supplemental  trans- 
portation, provided  the  sanitary  requirements  are  properly  met,  is  the 


194     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

cost.  The  cost  per  ton-mile  for  moving  refuse  materials  by  supple- 
mental methods  of  transportation  for  long  distances  is  less  than  by- 
team  haul.  Therefore,  they  are  often  used.  The  larger  the  volume 
of  refuse  to  be  moved,  the  more  economical  will  this  method  become, 
and  its  use  will  increase  as  the  design  of  motor  trucks  improves. 

Such  transportation  is  secured  by  trolley  cars,  barges,  steam  rail- 
roads, and  motor  trucks  with  or  without  trailers.  The  local  conditions 
and  the  cost  should  decide  the  best  means  to  be  adopted. 

An  important  part  of  the  scheme  is  the  transfer  station  at  which 
the  collected  refuse  is  delivered  and  transferred  to  the  means  by  which 
it  is  to  be  transported  to  the  place  of  final  disposal.  Such  stations 
must  be  properly  located  at  suitable  places  and  designed  so  that  they 
may  be  readily  kept  clean  and  be  economical  in  operation. 


CHAPTER  V 

ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION  AND 
TRANSPORTATION 

In  the  previous  chapters  a  few  cost  data  are  given  in  connection 
with  descriptions  of  structures  and  operations.  In  the  present  chap- 
ter the  subject  of  cost  estimation  as  a  whole  will  be  considered.  The 
unprecedented  effect  of  the  late  war  on  the  prices  of  materials  and  on 
labor  makes  the  determination  of  costs  at  present  generally  extremely 
difficult.  Careful  analyses,  and  adjustments  to  present  conditions, 
are  therefore  especially  necessary. 

The  abnormal  conditions  increasing  the  cost  at  present  are: 
Labor  shortage,  decrease  in  the  efficiency  of  men,  higher  wages,  and 
shorter  work  days. 

So  many  local  factors  enter  into  the  cost  of  collection,  haul  trans- 
fer, and  transportation  of  refuse  materials,  that,  unless  these  are  con- 
sidered and  understood,  the  cost  data  are  often  misleading.  Standard 
forms  for  recording  the  cost  data  of  refuse  collection  are  not  used 
extensively,  so  that,  as  the  available  information  is  not  in  uniform 
shape,  it  should  be  judged  with  caution,  and  used  with  qualification. 
In  all  cases,  reference  should  be  made,  where  possible,  to  the  original 
source  of  information.  The  cost  data  in  the  following  pages  are 
classified  according  to  the  suggestions  made  in  Chapters  III  and  IV. 
Methods  of  analyzing  the  cost  of  various  parts  of  the  service  are 
given  first,  and  are  followed  by  the  actual  data.  Some  of  the  data 
have  been  taken  from  the  work  of  Jacobs  and  Cenfield.  Chapter  XII 
contains  some  information  on  the  cost  of  collection  in  Chicago. 


A.— ELEMENTS 

The  elements  governing  the  loading,  hauling,  transfer,  and  trans- 
portation of  refuse  materials  have  been  mentioned  in  Chapters  III  and 
IV.  Those  pertaining  to  the  cost  of  each  part  of  the  collection  service 
can  be  segregated  from  what  has  already  been  given,  and  studied 
advantageously  by  the  methods  mentioned  in  what  follows.     The 

195 


196     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

unit  quantities  used  in  the  computations  for  any  proposed  work,  must, 
of  course,  be  determined  for  each  locality  and  specific  local  condition, 
as  the  assumptions  made  in  the  following  calculations  are  solely  for 
the  purpose  of  illustrating  the  method. 

B.— LOADING 

The  cost  of  loading  will  vary  with  the  character  of  the  material, 
the  district  served,  the  season  of  the  year,  the  unit  cost  for  labor  in 
each  locality,  and  with  still  other  local  conditions. 

We  may  analyze  the  cost  of  loading  one  wagon  with  garbage  or 
other  material,  as  follows: 

Let     n  =  number  of  persons  per  house  or  per  collection; 

m  =  number  of  minutes  required  to  make  one  collection,  or  to 

give  service  to  one  house; 
d  =  interval,  in  days,  between  collections; 
c  =  capacity  of  wagon,  in  tons; 

g=  quantity  of  garbage  or  other  material  produced  by  1000 
persons,  in  tons  per  day; 
and         N  =  number  of  hours  required  to  load  one  wagon. 

1000 
cX Xm 

Then,     A^  = . 

dXqXQO 

Let     a  =cost  of  team,  wagon,  and  collector  per  hour; 
and  6  =  cost  of  loading  one  wagon. 

Then,  the  cost  of  loading  one  wagon  =Na. 

Example :  Assuming  that 

n  =  10,  m  =  l,  d=2,  c=2,  g  =0.273,  and  a  =$0.75. 

o     1000     , 
2x— -Xl 

Then,     N  = =6.1  hours  to  load  the  wagon; 

2X0.273X60 

and  the  cost  to  load  one  wagon 

6=6.1X0.75=$4.57. 

4.57 
As  c  =2,  the  cost  of  loading  per  ton  is  — —  =S2.28. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION  197 

The  same  analysis  can  be  applied,  also,  to  the  loading  of  ashes, 
rubbish,  mixed  refuse,  or  any  material,  if  the  proper  unit  quantities 
and  basic  data  are  first  determined.  The  cost  per  ton  for  loading 
other  refuse  materials  in  Chicago  in  1914,  in  accordance  with  properly 
assumed  data,  were  found  to  be  as  follows: 

Cost  of  Loading 
Materials  per  Ton 

Ashes $0,415 

Rubbish 2.62 

Mixed  refuse 0 .  56 


C— HAULING 

The  refuse  material  when  loaded  into  the  collection  wagon  must 
be  hauled  to  the  transfer  station  or  to  the  place  of  final  disposal.  This 
is  done  by  horse-drawn  vehicle  or  by  motor.  The  length  of  haul  will 
be  from  the  point  of  last  collection  to  the  place  of  final  delivery,  and 
this  distance  must  be  covered  twice  for  each  separate  load. 

The  cost  will  depend  on  the  rate  of  travel,  the  weight  of  the  load, 
and  the  cost  of  the  team  and  driver,  or  motor  and  mechanic.  The 
cost  of  team  haul  may  be  estimated  as  follows: 

Rate  of  travel 3.0  miles  per  hour 

Cost  of  outfit $0. 75  per  hour 

Cost  per  mile  traveled 0 .  25 

Cost  per  mile  hauled 0. 50 

Cost  per  ton-mile  with  a  2-ton  load 0.25 

The  cost  by  gasoline  or  electric  truck  may  be  estimated  as  follows: 

Rate  of  travel 6.0  miles  per  hour 

Cost  of  outfit $2.40  per  hour 

Cost  per  mile  traveled 0 .  40 

Cost  per  mile  hauled 0 .  80 

Cost  per  ton-mile  with  a  5-ton  load 0. 16 

The  rate  of  travel  will  vary  considerably  in  different  sections  of  a 
large  city,  being  slower  through  streets  congested  with  a  large  volume 
of  traffic.  In  such  districts,  the  collection  work  may  preferably  be 
done  at  night  or  in  the  early  morning. 

Cost  of  Horse  Maintenance  in  Boston,  Mass. — The  average  cost 
in  1918  of  maintaining  the  horses  of  the  sewer  and  sanitary  division 
of  the  Public  Works  Department  of  Boston,  Mass.,  was  $1.68  per  day 
per  horse,  according  to  the  recently  issued  annual  report  of  the  depart- 


198     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

uient.*     An  average  of  171.8  horses  was  kept.     The  itemized  cost 
was  as  follows: 

Per  horse 
per  day 

Labor $0. 5837 

Hay  and  grain 8355 

Fuel 0087 

Light 0056 

Rent  and  taxes 0500 

Yard  and  stable  repairs 0187 

Yard  and  stable  furnishings 0285 

Veterinary  services  and  medicine 0225 

Horseshoeing,  etc 1292 

Total $1.68 


D.— TRANSFER  STATIONS 

The  building  and  operation  of  transfer  stations  should  be  con- 
sidered as  a  part  of  the  cost  of  transportation.  A  transfer  station 
to  handle  600  cu.  yd.,  or  375  tons  a  day,  has  cost,  depending  on  the 
type  of  building  and  local  conditions,  from  $30,000  to  $50,000,  includ- 
ing land  in  a  fairly  well  built-up  section. 

In  1916  the  annual  cost  of  operation,  for  about  375  tons  per  day, 
was  estimated  as  follows : 

Interest  at  5% $2500 

Depreciation  of  plant  at  21% 1250 

Labor : 

1  foreman 1200 

4  laborers 3600 

Repairs  and  supplies 2500 

Total..  .  / $11,050 

This  is  equivalent  to  a  cost  of  9.5  cents  per  ton. 

E.— TRANSPORTATION 

The  cost  of  transportation  of  refuse  from  the  transfer  station  to  the 
place  of  final  disposal  depends  on  the  method  used.  The  cost  for 
each  of  several  methods  is  discussed  below.  Chapter  IV,  under  dif- 
ferent subheadings,  also  contains  information  on  the  cost  of  supple- 
mental transportation. 

*  Engineering  and  Contracting,   March  3d,    1920. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION  199 

1.  By  Trolley. — Haviiifi;  a  typical  transfer  station  receiving  GOO 
cu.  yd.  of  refuse  material  per  day,  and  trains  made  up  of  one  motor 
car,  which  carries  no  load,  and  two  trailers,  each  trailer  having  a 
capacity  of  25  cu.  yd.,  then,  24  trailer  loads  are  required  to  move 
600  cu.  yd.  per  day.  If  the  place  of  disposal  is  in  such  a  location  that 
each  train  can  make  two  trips  a  day,  six  trains  will  he  required. 
Assume  that  three  motors  can  handle  the  six  trains.  The  daily  cost 
of  operation  would  then  be: 

Motor  cost;  three  at  $25  =S75  per  day. 
Trailers;  twelve  at         6=  72  per  day. 

Total $147  per  day. 

If  the  600  cy.  yd.  of  refuse  weigh  375  tons,  the  cost  of  trolley  trans- 
portation would  be  40  cents  per  ton. 

2.  By  Barges.— A  good  serviceable  tug  has  cost  about  .S30,000, 
and  deck-scows  about  $7000  each.  The  annual  cost  of  operating  a 
fleet  may  then  be  estimated  as  follows: 

Annual  Cost  of  Tug: 

Interest  at  5% $1,500 

Depreciation  on  15-year  life 1,389 

Labor: 

Captain $2100 

Engineer 1800 

Fireman 1000 

Deck  hands 1800 

6,700 

Repairs 2,500 

Fuel 3,500 

Supplies 1,000 

Insiu-ance 200 

Total $16,789 

Annual  Cost  op  Barge: 

Interest  at  5% $350 

Depreciation 324 

Deck  hands 1,800 

$2,474 
Assume  that  one  tug  serves  four  barges $9,896 

Total  annual  cost  of  fleet $26,685 


200    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

If  each  barge  makes  one  trip  per  day,  carrying  100  tons  of  refuse, 
the  cost  per  ton  amounts  to  22  cents. 

3.  By  Steam  Railroads. — The  cost  of  transportation  oy  steam 
railroads  depends  principally  on  the  switching  charges.  These  may 
range  from  $5  to  $15  per  car.  A  car  will  hold  about  40  tons  of  gar- 
bage, on  which  basis  the  switching  charge  will  average  about  25  cents 
per  ton.  Table  61  gives  the  cost  of  transporting  garbage  by  steam 
railroad  at  Cleveland  and  Columbus,  Ohio. 

Table  61. — Costs  of  Transporting  Garbage  by  Steam  Railroad 


Length 

Cost 

Cost 

Cost 

of 

Tons 

CSty 

Year 

Popu- 
lation 

haul, 
in 

miles 

of 
garbage 

Total 
cost 

per 
ton 

per 
ton- 
mile 

per 
capita 

Cleveland,  Ohio 

1905 

468,000 

9 

30,382 

$4,561.00 

W.150 

$0,017 

$0,010 

1910 

560,663 

9 

44,747 

6,260.00 

0.140 

0.015 

0.011 

" 

1913 

620,000 

9 

52,354 

6,682.15 

0.128 

0.014 

0.011 

" 

1919 

770,000 

9 

60,932 

11,441.86 

0.188 

0.021 

0.015 

Columbus,  Ohio 

1912 

192,700 

2 

18,789 

4,300.00 

0.229 

0.057 

0.022 

4.  By  Motor  Trucks. — The  cost  of  loading  a  motor  truck  is  analyzed 
by  the  same  method  as  mentioned  for  wagons.  The  cost  for  truck 
operation  per  hour  will  be  greater  than  for  wagons,  and  the  rate  of 
loading  will  have  to  be  increased  proportionately  to  make  the  cost 
equal  to  that  of  loading  a  horse-drawn  wagon.  The  cost  of  haul  by 
motor  truck,  however,  will  be  less.  The  relatively  high  loading  cost 
for  motor  trucks  can  be  reduced  by  limiting  them  to  transfer  work 
and  by  using  the  so-called  tractor  and  trailer  system,  being  tried  on  a 
large  scale  in  New  York  and  other  cities  in  America,  and  already  used 
in  quite  a  number  of  European  cities. 

The  first  cost  of  motor  trucks  varies  with  the  kind  of  body,  the 
general  finish,  the  appurtenances,  the  motive  power,  and  other  items. 
In  view  of  the  present  uncertainty  of  prices,  no  costs  are  here  given. 
They  can  be  readily  ascertained  at  any  time  from  dealers. 

The  Electrical  World*  has  compiled  operating  costs  for  electric 
motor  trucks  in  commercial  service  from  50  plants  in  all  parts  of  the 
United  States.  The  costs  include  interest,  depreciation,  insurance, 
licenses,  upkeep  of  tires,  batteries,  mechanical  parts,  power,  supplies, 
garage  charges,  drivers'  wages,  and  supervision.  The  daily  mileage 
is  not  recorded,  but  the  cost  per  day,  for  the  various  sizes,  is  given 
in  the  following  table: 

•  October  7,  10,  and  17,  1914. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


201 


Rated  capacity,  in  tons 

Average  cost  per  day 

0.5 
1.0 

s.o 

3.5 

5.0 

$6.34 

7.56 

8.92 

10.38 

11.74 

The  Chicago  Chamber  of  Commerce,  in  1915,  after  compiling  a 
large  number  of  di,ta  for  commercial  trucks  of  various  sizes,  arrived 
at  an  average  cost  of  operation  of  $0.11  per  ton-mile,  including  fi.xed 
charges.  These  figures  were  quite  representative  when  published, 
but  at  present  might  be  multiplied  by  almost  two. 

In  reference  to  the  operating  charges  on  gasoline  motor  trucks, 
the  following  is  abstracted  from  an  article  by  Mr.  Joseph  Husson, 
Editor  of  The  Commercial  Vehicle,  in  the  issue  of  that  journal  of 
AprU  15,  1919,  pp.  26-28. 

The  yearly  charges  for  gasoline  motor  trucks  are  given  below, 
their  magnitude  being  in  the  order  named. 

The  total  yearly  charges  are  nearly  equal  to  the  first  cost  of  the 
truck,  with  its  body,  dumping  device,  and  other  accessories.  Mr. 
Husson  illustrates  this  by  what  he  calls  "  The  Big  8  in  Truck  Opera- 
tion," giving  the  details  of  the  yearly  operation  of  a  5-ton  Pierce- 
Arrow  truck  used  in  the  general  contracting  business  in  Philadelphia. 
The  original  cost  of  this  truck,  including  S400  for  the  body  and  $132 
war  tax  on  the  truck,  was  $6032. 

The  costs  of  operation  for  one  year  (1918)  were: 


1.  Driver's  wages $1560.00 

Tires 1095.60 

Gasoline $693.16 

OU,  etc 36.00  729.16 

Inspection  and  repairs 399 .  60 

Depreciation  (life  of  150,000  miles) .  .  391 .  20 

Insm-ance 377 .  38 

Interest  on  investment  at  6% 361 .92 

Garage 300.00 


Totals $5214.86 


Percentage 
29.9 
21.1 

14.0 
7.6 
7.5 
7.3 
6.9 
5.7 

100.00 


The  total  number  of  days  operated  was  300,  and  the  mileage 
12,000.  The  average  daily  mileage  was  40.  The  cost  per  day  operated 
was  $17.38,  and  the  cost  per  mile  was  $0,434. 


202     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  largest  item  in  the  operating  costs  is  the  driver's  wages.  Labor 
costs  are  high,  and  may  yet  increase  before  stabihzing.  In  operating 
the  truck,  much  depends  on  the  driver.  If  he  is  careless  or  indif- 
ferent, the  resulting  costs  per  ton-mile  may  be  excessively  high,  even 
if  the  truck  is  one  of  the  best  on  the  market  and  is  operated  under  the 
best  possible  conditions  of  loading  and  unloading. 

The  cost  of  the  tires  was  $1095.60  for  the  12,000  miles,  or  $0.0913 
per  mile,  including  depreciation,  etc.  The  original  cost  of  the  four 
tires  was  $639.16,  and  they  carried  a  guaranty  of  7000  miles.  This 
cost  for  tires  is  almost  as  large  as  that  for  the  driver,  and  indicates 
that  the  greatest  care  should  be  taken  in  selecting  them  and  keeping 
them  in  repair.  Tire  costs  and  loss  of  time  when  making  tire  changes 
are  important,  and  should  not  be  overlooked.  Of  course,  the  condition 
of  the  roads  traversed  affects  the  life  of  all  tires,  and  the  speed  of  the 
vehicle  and  the  care  or  carelessness  of  the  driver  are  most  important 
factors.  Overspeeding  and  overloading  are  the  two  greatest  truck 
evils,  and  show  their  influence  directly  in  tire  costs.  The  manner  of 
starting  and  stopping  the  truck  also  has  an  important  influence  on 
the  wear  of  the  tires. 

The  cost  of  gasoline  is  the  third  item  in  importance,  which  indi- 
cates that  it  should  be  reduced  in  every  way  possible.  In  general, 
the  engine  should  not  be  allowed  to  run  while  the  truck  is  standing 
and  being  loaded  or  unloaded.  The  engine  starter  has  been  used 
extensively  on  trucks  having  pneumatic  tires,  and  has  proved  a 
great  gasoline  economizer;  but  it  has  not  yet  been  found  entirely 
practicable  to  use  it  on  the  larger  trucks  having  solid  tires. 

Regarding  the  cost  of  inspection  and  repairs,  it  may  be  said  that,  in 
the  case  of  the  5-ton  Pierce- Arrow  truck  cited,  this  item  was  about 
3|  cents  per  mile.  The  best  way  to  cut  down  this  expense  is  to  make 
repairs  while  they  are  small.  This  may  be  done  by  making  a  brief 
but  thorough  daily  inspection.  Excessive  repair  costs  are  generally 
due  to  overspeeding,  overloading,  or  general  carelessness  on  the  part 
of  the  driver.  Proper  lubrication  is  also  an  important  factor  in  reduc- 
ing the  cost  of  repairs,  and  efficient  garage  methods  save  the  mechanic's 
time. 

The  depreciation  charge  is  affected,  to  a  large  extent,  by  the  initial 
cost  of  the  chassis,  body,  and  equipment  of  the  truck.  It  has  been 
customary  to  charge  off  this  depreciation  by  assuming  that  the  truck 
will  last  a  certain  number  of  years.  A  more  rational  method  is  to 
assume  the  truck  to  have  a  life  of  so  many  thousand  miles,  and  to 
apportion  the  depreciation  to  cover  this  assumed  life,  considering 
the  kind  of  work   being  done.     In  the  case  cited   the  truck  was 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION  203 

assumed  to  have  a  life  of  150,000  miles.  This,  however,  seems  to  be 
too  high  for  the  average  truck,  unless  the  best  of  care  is  taken  in  opera- 
tion and  maintenance. 

The  item  of  insurance  against  fire,  theft,  and  accident  is  almost 
as  large  as  that  of  inspection  and  repairs.  Insurance,  however,  is 
very  important,  and  should  never  be  neglected. 

Interest  is  an  item  which  is  in  direct  proportion  to  the  original 
cost  of  the  chassis,  body,  and  accessories,  and  in  this  case  was  com- 
puted at  6%,  the  legal  rate  in  New  York  State. 

The  eighth  and  last  item  is  the  charge  for  garageing.  In  this  the 
truck  owner  must  decide  whether  it  is  more  economical  to  maintain 
his  trucks  in  a  public  garage  or  in  one  of  his  own.  Generally  five  or 
more  trucks  can  be  maintained  more  cheaply  in  the  owner's  garage 
than  in  a  public  one. 

A  study  of  a  number  of  records  indicates  that  the  daily  mileage  of 
trucks  will  generally  range  from  25  to  40. 

The  Chicago  Civil  Service  Commission,  after  an  extended  study  in 
1912-13,  found  the  operating  cost  of  a  3-ton  gasoline  truck  to  be  SO.  13 
per  ton-mile.  A  3-ton  electric  truck  cost  $0.11  per  ton-mile,  with 
current  at  0.6  cent  per  kilowatt-hour,  which,  however,  is  a  rather  low 
figure  for  electric  power,  particularly  since  the  report  was  made. 

The  Department  of  Public  Works  in  Chicago  uses  one  5-ton  and 
one  2-ton  gasoline  truck  for  delivering  materials  between  city  yards 
and  construction  jobs.  The  average  cost  of  operating  the  5-ton  truck 
was  13  cents  per  ton-mile.  The  cost  of  operating  the  2-ton  truck 
varied  from  14  to  32  cents  per  ton-mile.  The  cost  by  teams  under 
contract  was  26.9  cents  per  ton-mile.  These  figures  are  from  actual 
service  records  kept  during  the  last  six  months  of  1914,  and  include 
fixed  and  all  other  charges.  They  are,  however,  only  for  truck  opera- 
tion, and  do  not  include  the  wages  of  helpers  for  loading,  etc. 

Messrs.  Downing  and  Perkins,  of  Hartford,  Conn.,  reported  in 
April,  1917,  that  the  average  cost  per  day  for  operating  a  1-ton  truck, 
with  an  average  daily  haul  of  37.2  miles,  and  including  driver's  pay, 
depreciation,  interest,  and  all  other  expenses,  was  $5.97. 

The  Waterbury  Committee's  investigation  in  1919  showed  that 
for  twenty-five  cities  under  municipal  collection  the  average  per 
capita  cost  of  collection  was  $0.30;  for  fourteen  cities  of  more  than 
125,000  population  it  was  $0.26;  and  for  eleven  cities  of  less  than 
125,000  population  it  was  $0.36.  The  average  for  five  cities  under 
the  contract  system  was  $0.36|  per  capita.  Per  capita  costs  were 
used  in  Waterbury,  rather  than  per  ton  costs,  because  of  the  belief 
that  the  number  of  persons  affected  determines  the  number  of  col- 


204     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

lection  trips  more  accurately  than  the  quantity  collected,  which  may 
vary  greatly  in  different  districts. 

Mr.  Ralph  W.  Home  *  gives  a  table,  showing  the  complete  average 
of  operating  costs  of  trucks,  which  we  copy  below.  Items  1  to  5 
are  more  or  less  constant,  irrespective  of  ton-mileage.  Items  6  to  9 
decrease  directly  as  the  ton-mileage  increases,  indicating  that,  in  a 
given  period  of  time,  as  large  a  ton-mileage  as  possible  should  be 
accomplished. 

"  The  table  expresses  the  percentages  which  any  given  item  is  of  the  total 
time.  They  are  based  on  a  cost  of  25c.  per  gallon  for  gasoline,  taxes  at 
$18  per  $1000,  license  fees  on  the  basis  adopted  by  the  Massachusetts  High- 
way Commission,  storage  charges  at  the  rate  of  $20  per  month,  and  deprecia- 
tion costs  on  the  sinking-fund  basis  with  interest  at  5.5%  applied  annually. 
The  life  of  the  truck  has  been  rationally  estimated  after  careful  study  of  the 
conditions  under  which  the  given  truck  was  operating.  Allowance  must  be 
made  for  any  factors  which  may  tend  to  increase  or  decrease  the  items,  such 
as  poor  vs.  good  roads,  hilly  vs.  level  country,  short  vs.  long  haul,  light  vs. 
heavy  loads,  and  short  loading  vs.  long  loading  periods.  An  allowance  like- 
wise should  be  made  where  the  costs  of  fuel,  supplies,  and  labor  differ  greatly." 

Operating  Costs  of  Motor  Trucks 


'  Capacity  of  truck,  tons 

Average  load  carried,  tons 

Total  operating  cost,  cents  per  ton- 
mile  

Per  cent  of  total  cost  per  ton-mile  of 
cost  of: 

1.  Gasoline 

2.  Lubricants 

3.  Tires 

4.  Repairs  and  sundries 

5.  Depreciation 

6.  Chauffeur 

7.  License,  insurance,  and  taxes. .  . 

8.  Storage 

9.  Interest  (at  5|%  per  annum) . . . 


2 

2 

21.5 


13.6 
4.7 

18.0 
9.1 

23.5 

18.1 
4.3 
5.2 
3.5 


3 
3.3 

19.0 


15.2 
4.2 

14.8 
9.4 

22.0 

20.6 
4.4 
4.8 
4.6 


31 

3.8 

18.1 


17.3 

2.0 

13.5 

10.0 

20.5 

24.0 

4.6 

3.0 

5.1 


4 
4.15 

17.8 


19.7 

1.4 

10.8 

10.5 

21.0 

21.7 

5.4 

3.6 

5.9 


5 
5.2 

16.5 


18.6 

2.2 

16.7 

11.0 

20.0 

17.3 

5.0 

3.7 

5.5 


7 
6.5 

15.0 


17.0 

2.2 

20.2 

11.1 

20.0 

15.4 

4.8 

4.0 

5.3 


*Engineering  News-Record,  Sept.  20,  1917. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


205 


F.— ACTUAL  COSTS  AVAILABLE 

More  actual  data  should  be  collected  in  order  to  \'erify  the  costs 
estimated  herein,  as  but  very  few  are  now  available,  and  as  the  war 
effects  have  materially  modified  them.  The  costs  for  collection  service, 
as  generally  recorded,  include  both  loading  and  hauling  in  one  figure, 
but  costs  of  transportation  are  frequently  given  separately.  Some  data 
from  cities  in  which  the  itemized  cost  of  collection  is  available  have 
been  summarized  below. 

1.  New  York. — The  cost  per  cubic  yard  for  the  collection  and  re- 
moval of  garbage,  in  steel  carts  having  an  average  capacity  of  2  cu.  yd., 
in  1914,  was  60|  cents  per  cubic  yard  in  Manhattan  and  67  cents  in 
Brooklyn.  For  the  collection  of  ashes  and  street  sweepings  the  aver- 
age cost  was  59|  cents  per  cubic  yard.  Rubbish  removal  in  7.5- 
cu.  yd.  carts  cost  $0,216  per  cubic  yard.  Although  these  figures 
take  no  account  of  the  length  of  haul,  they  give  a  general  idea  of  the 
unit  cost  of  the  service  in  1914. 

Parsons,  in  1906,  stated  that  garbage  can  be  transported  and 
dumped  at  sea  in  a  Delahanty  self-dumping  scow  for  19  cents  per 
cubic  yard,  equivalent  to  about  35  cents  per  ton. 

The  following  data  are  from  a  report  by  Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston  on 
the  operations  in  the  Borough  of  Richmond  in  1911: 


Quantities 


Unit  cost 


Collection  of  street  sweepings 

Snow  removal  from  roadways 

Cleaning  gutters  of  snow  and  mud,  by 

hand 

Cleaning  gutters  of  snow  and  mud,  by 

plow 

Cleaning  snow  from  sidewalks 

Cleaning  snow  from  cross-walks 


36,210       cu.  yd. 
42,190 

1,503.4  nules 

49 

12.76  " 
262.2     " 


$0 .  35  per  cu.  yd, 
0.19     "       " 

4 .  72  per  mile 

0.56   "      " 

78.97   "     " 
6.52    "      " 


The  reports  of  the  Department  of  Street  Cleaning,  for  the  Boroughs 
of  Manhattan,  Brooklyn,  and  The  Bronx,  show  that  the  cost  of  col- 
lection of  street  sweepings  in  1918  was  greater  than  in  1917  as  the 
salaries  of  inspectors  were  increased  from  $100  to  $115  per  month, 
teams  from  66|  cents  to  75  cents  per  hour,  and  shovelers  from  25  cents 
to  27  cents  per  hour. 


206     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  following  items  of  expenditure  have  been  taken  from  the 
report  of  the  Department  of  Street  Cleaning  for  1917,  and  refer  to 
the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan,  Brooklyn,  and  The  Bronx,  with  a  pop- 
ulation of  5,241,302.  The  last  column  has  been  added  to  show  the 
expenditure  per  100,000  population. 


Total 
expenditure 


Expenditure 
per  100,000 
population 


Salaries  and  wages,  regular 

Salaries  and  wages,  temporary 

Supplies 

Equipment 

Materials 

Repairs  and  replacements 

Transportation  and  telephone 

Final  disposition,  department  service 

Final  disposition,   general  plant  service   (con- 
tract)   


$4,844,300 
781,500 
660,700 
201,500 
131,100 
16,300 
143,100 
121,000 

1,194,000 


$92,425 

14,914 

12,605 

3,844 

2,501 

311 

2,730 

2,309 

22,781 


The  number  of  men  engaged  in  the  collection  service  and  by  the 
Department  for  the  final  disposition  service,  in  the  above  three  Bor- 
oughs, is  as  follows: 


Number  of 

,    .    ^ 

Total  number 

employees  per 

of  employees 

100,000 
population 

Collection  Division: 

Foremen  and  hostlers 

251 

212 

1956 

4.79 

4.04 

37.32 

Stablemen 

Drivers 

Refuse  collectors  (Manhattan  alone) 

116 

2.21 

Final  disposition    (including  street   sweeping, 

but  excluding  disposal  of  garbage  by  con- 

tract) : 

Superintendent,  inspectors,  andboardmen..  . 

120 

2.30 

In  addition  to  the  employees  mentioned  above,  there  was  a  suitable 
force  of  clerks  and  mechanics,  and  also  the  medical  and  surgical 
service. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


207 


2.  Chicago. — A  careful  analysis  of  the  cost  of  collecting  garbage, 
ashes,  and  rubbish  in  Chicago  is  shown  in  Table  62,  for  the  years 
1908  to  1918. 


Table  62. — ^Average  Costs  of  Collecting  Refuse  in  Chicago 

(Loading  and  hauling) 


Cost  per 

Cost  per 

Year 

Cost  per  ton 

cubic  yard  of 

Year 

Cost  per  ton 

cubic  yard  of 

of  garbage 

ashes  and 

of  garbage 

ashes  and 

rubbish 

rubbish 

1908 

13.78 

$0.56 

1914 

$3.63 

$0.66 

1909 

3.76 

0.57 

1915 

3.20 

0.70 

1910 

3.43 

0.59 

1916 

3.70 

0.72 

1911 

3.19 

0.62 

1917 

4.35 

0.76 

1912 

3.20    • 

0.60 

1918 

4.79 

0.86 

1913 

3.69 

0.62 

If  ashes  and  rubbish  together  weigh  1000  lb.  per  cubic  yard,  the 
cost  of  collection  for  these  materials  amounts  to  $1.20  per  ton.  Jacobs 
and  Cenfield  state  that  in  Chicago: 


"  The  Royal  Lighterage  Company  has  the  contract  for  transportation 
from  the  loading  stations,  and  the  present  contract  is  made  on  a  per  diem 
basis  at  the  rate  of  $81.45  for  each  vkorking  day.  During  the  year  1912  the 
cost  of  operation,  maintenance,  and  lighterage  of  garbage  delivered  to  the 
Oakley  Avenue  station  averaged  about  80  cents  per  ton.  The  cost  of  opera- 
tion, maintenance,  and  lighterage  chargeable  against  the  garbage  delivered  to 
the  Chicago  Avenue  loading  station  averaged  about  65  cents  per  ton  during 
the  same  period." 


The  cost  of  operating  the  hoist  or  of  making  the  collections  is  not 
included. 

Mr.  George  A.  Zinn  estimated  the  cost  of  team  haul  in  Chicago  in 
1912  at  50  cents  per  ton-mile.  (See  also  Chapter  III,  under  Speed 
Rate.) 

3.  Philadelphia. — For  Philadelphia  conditions,  a  report  in  Engi- 
neering News  of  January  11,  1917,  gives  S17.91  as  the  cost  of  operating 
a  5-ton  gasoline  truck  50  miles  per  day.  The  fixed  charges  were 
$5.39  per  day,  or  30%  of  the  total  cost. 


208      COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


The  variable  expenses  were : 

Per  mile 

Per  day  at 
50  miles 

Percentage 

of  total  cost 

per  day 

Depreciation* 

Gasoline  at  25  cents  per  gallon 

Lubricating  oil 

Tires 

Repairs 

$0.06 
0.083 
0.006 
0.039 
0.06 

$3.14 
4.17 
0.27 
1.94 
3.00 

17.6 
23.3 
1.5 
10.8 
16.7 

Totals 

$0.25 

$12.52 

69.9 

*  About  15%  of  the  first  cost  depreciates  with  the  passage  of  time,  and  about  85%  is 
proportional  directly  to  the  mileage  run. 

Assuming  25%  as  the  depreciation  for  the  hfe  of  the  truck,  oper- 
ating 25  miles  per  day,  with  a  life  of  1500  days,  we  must  explain  that 
this  rather  high  allowance  is  due  to  the  following  facts:  That  a  truck 
used  in  house-to-house  collection  work  must  be  started  and  stopped 
many  times  for  each  loading,  that  the  motor  must  be  kept  running 
during  the  short  stops,  and,  on  account  of  the  many  stops  and  starts, 
the  average  speed  will  be  much  less  than  the  most  economical  speed 
of  the  truck.  We  should  also  note  the  deleterious  effect  on  the  truck 
of  the  dust  from  the  street  and  the  grit  and  ashes  of  the  refuse. 

4.  Cleveland. — The  work  of  collecting  garbage  is  carried  on  by  the 
Garbage  Disposal  Division  of  the  Department  of  Public  Service.  A 
superintendent  of  garbage  collection  is  in  direct  charge  of  the  work. 

The  garbage  wagons  are  built  according  to  specifications  drawn 
by  the  city.  They  consist  of  a  water-tight,  steel  body,  on  a  four- 
wheeled  running  gear.  The  body  is  arranged  to  dump  at  the  rear, 
and  has  a  canvas  cover.  The  capacity  of  a  wagon  is  70  cu.  ft.  One 
horse  and  one  man  go  with  each  wagon. 

Garbage  collections  are  made  every  other  day  in  districts  within 
1^  miles  of  the  loading  station,  and  every  third  day  in  outlying  dis- 
tricts. No  collections  are  made  on  Sundays.  About  100  wagons  are 
used  to  collect  from  the  entire  city. 

The  wagons  deliver  the  garbage  to  a  central  loading  station  on  the 
Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad.  Special  garbage  cars  are  used  to 
transport  the  garbage  from  the  loading  station  to  the  reduction  plant, 
9  miles  distant. 

Table  63,  giving  the  cost  of  collection  of  garbage  for  1919,  was  taken 
from  the  annual  report  of  the  department.  This  table  also  gives  a 
summary  of  costs  for  1913  to  1919. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


209 


Table  63. — Cost  Per  Ton  for  Collecting  Garbage 

IN  Cleveland  for  the  Year  Ending  December  31,  1919; 

AND  Summaries  for  1913  to  1919,  Inclusive 

(From  Department  of  Public  Works) 
(Quantity  of  garbage  collected  in  1919  =00,932  tons) 


Supervision 

Operation :  Labor  for  collecting 

Labor  for  shoeing 

Supplies :  Office 

Fuel,  light,  and  power 

Feed 

Shoeing 

Barn 

Motor  vehicles 

Cleaning  and  toilet 

Medical  and  surgical 

Miscellaneous 

Overhead  and  miscellaneous 

Maintenance : 

Cars  and  v/agons,  labor  and  materiaL 

Harness,  labor  and  material 

Buildings,  labor  and  material 

Office  furniture  and  fixtures 

Machinery,  tools  and  implements. . . . 

Motor  vehicles 

Miscellaneous  equipment 


Total  collection  cost. 


Loss  on  horses . 
Depreciation . . 


Total  collection  cost  including  depreciation .    $343,748.84 
Cost  of  supplemental  transportation  from 
Canal  Road  to  Willow 11,426.06 


Total  cost  of  city  collection  and  supplemental 

transportation  to  Willow $355,174 .  90 


$0.0375 
4.0862 
0.0902 
0.0039 
0.0228 
0.4984 
0.0414 
0.0378 
0.0795 
0.0009 
0.0042 
0.0030 
0.0675 

0.3352 
0.0716 
0.0667 
0.0010 
0.0055 
0.0219 
0.0343 


$5.5095 

0.0172 
0.1148 


.6415 


0.1875 


$5.8290 


Year 


1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 


Total  cost 


$124,938.26 
165,658.52 
181,556.29 
195,266.18 
236,035.16 
304,183.38 
355,174.90 


Cost  per  ton 


$2,385 
2.98 
2.91 
3.22 
4.21 
5.27 
5.83 


Cost  per  capita 


$0.2016 
0.221 
0.276 
0.290 
0.341 
0.430 
0.461 


210     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  following  is  a  statement  of  the  cost,  etc.,  of  the  collection 
plant  at  Cleveland  in  1919: 

Building  at  Canal  Road $815.00 

Equipment : 

Furniture  and  fixtures 541 .  40 

Cars  and  wagons 28,040 .  00 

Harness 3,165.00 

Horses  and  mules 22,715 .  00 

Motor  vehicles 4,260 .  00 

Miscellaneous 4,653 .  52 

Inventory : 

Supplies 4,976 .  55 

Maintenance 1,170. 14 

Total  value $70,336.61 

5.  Baltimore.—- Table  64  shows  the  cost  of  collecting  the  mixture 
of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  in  Baltimore  for  1913. 


Table  64. — Cost  op  Collection  op  Mixed  Refuse  in  Baltimore,  in  1913 


Total  cost 

Cost  per  ton 

Pay-roll 

$150,029.88 

36,866.63 

4,167.62 

1,350.00 

552.48 

2,028.37 

4,949.01 

5,043.00 

15,025.00 

1,102.78 

$0,465 
0.114 
0.013 
0.004 
0.002 
0.006 
0.015 
0.016 
0.047 
0.003 

Feed 

Shoeing 

Stable  rent   

Veterinary 

Sundries 

Wagon  and  cart  repairs 

New  carts 

Horses  and  mules 

Harness 

Totals 

$221,114.77 

$0,685 

Cubic  yards 

Tons 

Garbage     

180,531 
464,720 

90,270 
232,360 

Ashes  and  rubbish 

Total  tons 

322,630 

6.  Detroit. — The  garbage  is  collected  by  the  city.     The  wagons 
comprise  a  water-tight  steel  body  on  a  four-wheeled  running  gear. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


211 


The  body  is  removable,  and  is  transported  to  the  reduction  plant  on 
freight  cars.  Each  wagon  is  drawn  by  one  horse,  and  is  served  by 
one  man.  The  cost  of  collection  per  ton  for  1910  is  shown  in  Table 
65,  which  also  gives  a  summary  for  1910  to  1916,  inclusive. 

Table  65. — Cost  op  Garbage  Collection  in  Detroit,  Mich.,  in  1910; 
AND  Summaries  for  1912  to  1916,  Inclusive 

(Population  in  1910  =405,706,  tonnage  =■  34,005) 


Total  cost 

Cost  per 
ton 

Per- 
centage 

Operating  expense: 
Labor 

$46,813.05 

11,221.29 

3,971.00 

2,082.00 

220.00 

249.99 

704.43 

221.95 

2,775.00 

182.76 

298.93 

$1,374 
0.329 
0.117 
0.061 
0.006 
0.007 
0.021 
0.007 
0.082 
0.005 
0.009 

68.2 

16.3 
5.8 
3.0 
0.3 
0.4 
1.0 
0.3 
4.0 
0.3 
0.4 

Feed,  and  shoeing  65  horses 

Supt.,  ass't  clerk,  and  blacksmith 

Maintenance — Wagons 

Maintenance — Harness 

Fire  insurance  for  horses  and  equipment. 
Stable  supplies,  telephone,  fuel,  etc .... 
Services  of  veterinary 

Horses  replaced      

Sundries,  scoop  shovels,  etc 

Maintenance — Buildings 

Totals 

$68,740.40 
$2,856.34 

$2,018 
$0,084 

100.0 

Depreciation  of  equipment 

Total  cost 

Cost  per 
ton 

Cost  per 
capita 

1910 

$68,740.40 
94,404.45 
102,132.30 
122,317.44 
133,529.60 
145,899.42 

$2,018 

2.17 
2.14 
1.91 

1.88 

$0,147 
0.194 
0.202 
0.235 
0.248 
0.263 

1912 

1913 

1914 

1915 

1916 

7.  Milwaukee. — In  Milwaukee,  all  refuse  is  collected  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Department  of  Public  Works.  Two  separations  of 
the  refuse  are  made,  the  garbage  being  collected  alone  and  the  ashes 
and  rubbish  together. 

The  garbage  is  collected  in  four-wheeled  wagons  with  removable 
iron  bodies  of  1.5  cu.  yd.  capacity.  They  are  drawn  by  one  horse, 
and  one  man  goes  with  each  wagon.     The  city  furnishes  the  iron  bodies, 


212     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


but  does  not  own  the  vehicles  or  horses.  The  price  paid  per  day  for  a 
horse,  vehicle,  and  collector  is  $3.50. 

The  garbage  collections  are  made  in  the  early  morning,  on  five 
days  a  week  during  the  winter  and  six  days  a  week  during  the  summer. 
Each  collector  brings  two  loads  per  day  to  the  incinerator,  and  the 
wagons  are  routed  so  that  one  load  has  a  short  and  the  other  a  long 
haul. 

At  the  incinerator,  a  crane  picks  up  the  wagon  body,  dumps  the 
garbage  into  storage  bins,  and  replaces  the  empty  body  on  the  wagon. 

The  ash  and  rubbish  collection  is  made  with  3-yd.,  bottom- 
dumping,  wooden  wagons,  drawn  by  two  horses.  The  wagons, 
horses,  and  drivers  are  hired  by  the  city.  Collections  are  made  once 
or  twice  a  week.  In  collecting  the  ashes  and  rubbish,  the  driver  has 
no  helper  assigned  to  him,  but  in  each  ward  there  is  a  crew  of  men 
whose  duty  it  is  to  help  load  all  wagons  in  the  ward. 

Tables  66  and  67,  computed  from  the  reports  of  the  Department 
of  Public  Works,  give  the  cost  of  this  collection  service. 

Table  66. — ^Annual  Cost  of  Collection  of  Gaebage    in  Milwaukee 


For  year 
ending 
Decem- 
ber 31st 


Items 


Total  cost 


Cost 
per  ton 


Cost 

per 

capita 


Per- 
centage 
of  total 

cost 


1914   i 


1916 


Superintendent 

Tinfiekeeper 

Stationery,  etc 

General  supplies 

General  repairs 

Telephone 

Horse  and  vehicle  hire 

Street  ear  fare  

General  equipment 

Totals 

Salaries 

Supplies 

Horse  and  vehicle  hire 

Equipment,  horse-drawn  vehicles 

Totals 


S     1,200.00 

936.29 

5.50 

64.41 

32,75 

99.00 

113,453.25 

72.75 

G60.18 


$0,030 
0.024 
0.0001 
0.002 
0.001 
0.002 
2.869 
0.002 
0.017 


$0. 00281 
0.0022 
0.00001 
0 . 0002 
0.0001 
0.0002 
0.2701 
0 . 0002 
0.0016 


1.030 
0,803 
0.005 
0.055 
0.028 
0  085 
97.365 
0.062 
0.567 


116,524.13 


$2 . 947* 


$0.2774 


100.000 


$2,028.71 

328.. 50 

117,210.17 

106.25 


$0,053 
0.009 
3.078 
0.004 


$0.0046 
0.0007 
0 . 2665 
0.0004 


1.697 

0.274 

97.898 

0.131 


$119,723.63 


$3.144t 


$0.2722  §,100. 000 


In  1918  the  average  cost  of  garbage  collections  was  $4.83  per  ton.  It  has  increased 
gradually  since  1913,  when  it  was  $2,42  per  ton.  The  wages  paid  to  the  collectors  in  1918 
were  $4,50  per  day,  and  each  collector  was  required  to  bring  in  two  loads  a  day. 

*  39,543.51  tons  of  garbage  collected  during  1914. 

t  38,139  tons  of  garbage  collected  during  1916. 

t  Population  in  1914  estimated  at  420,000. 

§  Population  in  1916  estimated  at  440,000. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


213 


Fig.  67. — Annual  Cost  of  Collection  of  Ashes  and  Rubbish 
IN  Milwaukee 


For  year 
ending 
Denem- 
ber  31st 

Items 

Total 
cost 

Coat 
per 
ton* 

Cost 

per 

cubic 

yardt 

Cost 

per 

capita  t 

Percent- 
age of 
total 
cost 

1914 

$94,361.90 

431.38 

8 .  25 

125,428.93 
358.36 

$6.6391 
0 . 0029 
0.0001 
0.8495 
0.0024 

$0 . 2933 
0.0013 
0 . 00002 
0.3899 
0.0011 

$0 . 2247 
0.0010 
0.00002 
0.2986 
0.0007 

42.78 
0.20 
0.004 

56.86 
0.16 

General  supplies 

General  repairs 

Horse  and  vehicle  hire .  .  . 
General  equipment 

Totals 

1916  1 

$220,588.82 

$1.4940 

$0.6856 

$0.5250 

100.00 

$98,212.82 

368.09 

124,490.90 

$0.6430 
0.0024 
0.8150 

$0.2945 
0.0011 
0.3738 

$0.2233 
0.0008 
0.2830 

44.00 

0.17 

55.83 

General  supplies 

Horse  and  vehicle  hire.  .  . 

Totals 

$223,071.81 

$1 . 4604 

$0.6694 

$0.5071 

100.00 

In  1918  the  average  cost  of  collection  of  ashes  and  rubbish  was  $0.79  per  cubic  yard. 
*  147,640  tons  collected  during  1914. 

152,800  tons  collected  during  1916. 
t  321,669  cu.  yd.  collected  during  1914. 

333,375  cu.  yd.  collected  during  1916. 
%  Population  in  1914  estimated  at  420,000. 

Population  in  1910  estimated  at  440,000. 

Table  68  gives  the  tonnage  of  garbage,  the  volume  of  ashes  and 
rubbish,  and  the  costs  for  labor  and  team  haul,  for  each  month  of  1919, 
together  with  some  comparative  figures  for  1918  and  1917. 

Prior  to  1910,  garbage  was  transported  across  the  Milwaukee 
River  by  barge.  The  wagon  bodies  were  hoisted  to  the  deck  of  a 
barge  which  made  two  trips  a  day.  The  towing  service  was  given 
free  by  the  fire  tug.  The  cost  of  hoisting  and  transportation  ranged 
from  12  to  15  cents  per  ton. 

8.  Washington, — In  Washington,  the  work  is  done  by  contract, 
and  certain  fines  are  deducted,  in  accordance  with  the  specifications. 
Summaries  of  additional  cost  data,  taken  from  annual  departmental 
reports,  are  shown  in  Table  69. 

9.  Columbus. — The  following  notes  on  collection,  compiled  from 
various  sources,  apply  to  the  year  1912,  for  which  the  costs  are  given. 

The  collection  of  all  refuse  is  carried  on  by  the  city  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Department  of  Public  Service,  with  the  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Department  in  direct  charge  of  the  work. 

Two  separations  of  refuse  are  made.  The  garbage  is  collected  by 
itself  and  delivered  at  a  loading  station  near  the  center  of  the  city. 


214     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Rubbish  is  collected  and  hauled  to  dumps.  Due  to  the  general  use 
of  natural  gas,  there  is  very  little  ash,  and  this  is  collected  with  the 
rubbish. 


Table  68. — Unit  Costs  of  Collection,  in  Milwaukee,  in  1919 


Month 


Gahbage 


Number 

of 

tons 


Cost  of 
Labor  and 
team  haul 

per  ton 


Ashes  and  Rubbish 


Number 

of 

cubic  yards 


Cost  of 
Labor  and 
team  haul 

per 
cubic  yard 


January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Totals,  1919 .  .  . 
Averages 

Totals  for  1918 
Totals  for  1917 


2,272 
1,617 
1,924 
2,085 
2,380 
2,899 
3,409 
3,679 
3,604 
3,417 
2,528 
2,236 


?6.08 
6.27 
6.00 
5.87 
5.91 
5.39 
5.12 
4.63 
4.68 
5.00 
5.45 
6.42 


59,895 
44,236 
45,024 
40,441 
34,022 
24,839 
11,226 
9,994 
10,098 
22,901 
33,769 
58,420 


32,050 


>.43 


394,865 


$4.83 
4.18 


356,786 
366,120 


m  9^ 

0.95 
0.94 
0.89 
0.82 
0.97 
1.02 
1.05 
0.55 
1.05 
1.00 
0.96 


$0.94 


^0.79 
0.70 


Average  weight  of  one  load  of 
Wages  $5.00  per  day. 


e  =  913  lb.     Two  loads  a  day   for   each  team. 


The  garbage  wagons  have  a  capacity  of  2.5  cu.  yd.,  and  are  spe- 
cially built  according  to  the  city's  specifications.  They  consist  of  a 
rectangular  steel  body  mounted  on  heavy  running  gear  and  provided 
with  a  spring  seat.  The  cover  is  of  canvas,  put  on  in  sections,  which 
makes  it  possible  to  uncover  only  a  part  of  the  wagon  at  a  time.  Two 
horses  and  one  man  go  with  each  wagon. 

The  garbage  collection  work  is  carried  on  during  six  days  per  week. 
From  January  1st  to  July  1st  garbage  is  collected  once  each  week; 
from  July  1st  to  October  1st,  twice  each  week;   and  from  October  1st 


ESTIMATINd  T/IE  COST  OF  f'OfJJiOTION 


215 


—  _  r 

.            _ 

t^  lO  O  rH  -tl 

o  o  o  o  o 

O  O  (X>  '1<  OI 

«j  'C  1-  O  O) 

r-H  OO  1-H  C 

3                  '^1  l^  'V^  /—^ 

05 

C^l  CO  .-H  t^  t- 

OO  CO  O)  Oi  X 

«^ 

'^i-j:^  ^  ^ 

1—1 

C^  lO  t^  C<)  CI 

lo  CO  'O  T-H  c^ 

1^  Ci  1-1  Oi  C5 

V3           CI 

1—1  r-H 

CO  O  IM  r-l 

oooco 

■^oi^co-i<          coco 

lO 

CD  O  C-1  CT>  O 
005»C^  t^ 

o  ooo  o 

CO  f  ^  r-H  -H                    COOO 

-t<  r-H  C3  CO  >0 

05 

1^  -t  O  Oi  o 

^~'^ 

'M  O  Oi 

»-c 

0(/3  0!M  O 
iO  TjH  TjH  ,-(  (N 

C0__O_C0__0i  X 

x^co'cc'-t^im' 

«^I-H   CO 

>-l  i-l 

CO  t--  1— 1  .-( 

'  1 

oooo  o 

Oi 
OiOiC^lCOTjt              OOOOO 

-^ 

CO-Mr-iOi^              COlcCO 

(M  lO  00  rH  -^ 

-f  1^  CO  "M  CO 

05 

05  CO  CO  lO  1— 1 

X  O  X  CO  lO 

«fe 

i-H 

-^  »0  -^  1-1  1-1 
C^  1-1 

C0__O  >0  Oi  X 
X'co'co'"-*  cs"" 

CO  t^  I-l  rH 

^I-l  -* 

ooooo 

-*  CO  c<i  CO  CO          ooo 

oooco 

CO 

t^  CO  CO  O)  00 

X  Oi  CO  O  lO 

,_,  ^  ,->  .—  ^ 

o 

t-"*  COO0<M 

X  C^  Oi  O  lO 

m 

1-H  04  O 

O  O  00  0>  T-H 
O  O  CO  1— 1  c^ 

co^t-h^lcco_^00 
x''co'~co'~co'~(n'' 

«#        '^^ 

CO  I>  T-(  rH 

OOOOO 

CO                                      1 

^co'^xco          ooo               1 

!M 

OOOOO 

-*  CO  1-H  !>.  I-l              coo 

■*  CO  t^  O  Oi 

'#  COOO  IC 

r-l   O   O  O  O                      'J^t^t^ 

C5 

■*  lO  CO  (M  ■* 

XiCcOOiO 

m 

,-1 

t^  CO  lO  i-H> 

CO^O^iO^CO  X 

x"co'~cd'"co'"(m'~ 

m     Tt< 

C<)  l-H 

CO  l>.  1-1  1-1 

•     1 

OOOOO 

i-Hc^i'^xt^              ooo          1 

I— 1 

OOOOO 

TfH  If  I-H  CO  I-l 

•OOO 

1-1  coco  CO  (M 

Oi-i  TtH(M  IC 

^  oooo 

Oi  CO  X 

C5 

o^  cot^ic 

^ 

CO  CO  c^ 

I— 1 

00 1-1  00  coo 

■*  t^  OiM  1-1 

^^--i^^Oi^^C^  X_ 

x'^co'^'co'  (m" 

e%o_^co 

^^ 

CO  t^^  1-1 

OOOOO 

t^Oi-HO?5          oooo          1 

o 

CO  C^  O  O  lO 

O  TjHO  O  X 

!>. -^  (M  O  1-H               oooo 

CO  i>.  CO  00 1^ 

COC^  ^Tt<  o 

^^  O  O  C  C              -^  rvj  cQ  CO 

03 

<M_^(M_^O^(M_^00 
Tl^''!^^C^^CO'"oo'" 

Oi  iC  >C'  X  CO 

co^oq_cD__oi  CO 
od'ic'"ic'~ic"c^i' 

«^ 

e^OiTtH^ 

r-H  CO»C 

t^  CO  1-1  1-1 

1 

mi 

1 

Q 

Cf 

c  yards 
c  yards 
.  barrels 
number 

per  ton 
ic  yard 
cu.  yd. 
r  barrel 

en.p.h 

W 

H 

-Q^ 

-2    tH    « 

:3   3 

3  s  & 

1 

o  o 

w  a 

O 

3 

xn 
3 

(B       ■ 

.  3 

a; 

CC 

H 

(h 

H 

^ 

■  a; 

a    ■ 

0)     ■ 

O 

hi 

bi 

D 

r/j 

O 

02 

.s 

3 

P 

O 
O 

oO 

0; 

< 

o 
^_ 

CO 

.§ 
s 

OS 

-d 
J  =s 

Q 

S 

o 

Ashes 

Miscellaneous 
Nieht-soil .... 

1 

B 

Q 

H      • 

o    • 

0   : 
Q    • 

Pg 

OS'S 

So 

cc 

< 

3     . 
O 
'^  _' 

CJ43 
22  bi 

s 

3 

03 

o3 
QJ 

p 

216     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

to  December  31st,  once  each  week.  This  schedule  is  not  followed  in 
the  down-town  district,  where  collections  are  made  daily.  The  aver- 
age number  of  teams  at  work  each  week  is  as  follows:  January  to 
July.  18;  July  to  October,  24;  October  to  December  31st,  18.  The 
city  is  laid  out  in  18  routes,  each  being  divided  into  two  sections. 
One  section  is  a  long  haul  from  the  loading  station  and  the  other  a 
short  haul.  These  are  grouped  as  far  as  possible  so  as  to  give  each 
team  an  equal  number  of  miles  to  travel  per  day.  By  this  method  no 
team  travels  more  than  16  miles  daily.  Each  team  collects  two  loads 
daily,  except  the  hotel  team,  which  collects  from  three  to  five.  The 
loads  must  average  1 J  tons.     The  average  haul  is  4  miles. 

The  rubbish  wagons  are  four-wheeled,  with  wooden  bodies  of 
3  cu.  yd.  capacity.     They  are  drawn  by  two  horses. 

For  the  collection  of  rubbish,  the  city  is  divided  into  eight  dis- 
tricts, each  being  in  charge  of  a  foreman,  who  has  control  over  about 
four  teams,  four  drivers,  and  one  helper.  The  number  of  teams 
working  daily,  throughout  the  year,  averages  35.  The  number  of 
loads  each  team  hauls  varies  with  the  length  of  haul,  but  each  must 
collect  at  least  three  loads  daily.  The  average  length  of  haul  is 
2   miles. 

The  garbage  is  transported  from  the  loading  station  to  the  reduc- 
tion plant  by  rail.  Special  cars,  with  a  capacity  of  80,000  lb.  and 
holding  about  1400  cu.  ft.,  are  used.  By  means  of  a  siding  at  the 
reduction  plant  and  another  at  the  loading  station,  the  cars  are  hauled 
directly  from  one  to  the  other,  a  distance  of  about  2  miles. 

Table  70  gives  the  first  cost  of  the  collection  and  transportation 
equipment.  Table  71,  computed  from  figures  in  the  reports  of  the 
Department  of  Public  Service,  gives  the  cost  of  collection,  exclusive 
of  fixed  charges,  of  the  different  classes  of  refuse. 

The  cost  of  collecting  manure  in  Columbus  in  1917  and  1918  was  as 
follows: 


Year 

Tons 
collected 

Cost  of 
collection 

Cost  per 
ton 

Revenue 

Profit 

1917 
1918 

2504 
2908 

$3462.64 
3880.97 

$1.38 
1.33 

$3480.00 
4049.00 

117.36 
168.03 

10.  Toronto. — In  Toronto,  in  1919,  Osborn  estimated  the  cost  of 
motor  transportation  for  garbage  and  ashes  at  14.0  cents  per  ton-mile 
for  a  full  load  and  at  23.5  cents  per  ton-mile  for  a  part  load.  These 
estimates  were  based  on  a  length  of  route  of  40  miles  per  day. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


217 


11.  Trenton. — Table  72  gives  the  cost  of  collecting  garbage  and 
ashes  in  Trenton,  N.  J.,  from  March,  1912,  to  March,  1913,  and  a 
summary  of  the  cost  for  subsequent  years  up  to  and  including  1918. 

12.  Sewickley. — Table  73  is  taken  from  an  account  of  garbage 
collection  and  incineration  in  Sewickley  by  the  Borough  Engineer, 
Mr.  Edward  E.  Duff,  Jr.* 

Table  70. — Cost  of  Equipment   for  Collection  and  Transportation 
OF  Refuse  in  Columbus,  1912 

(Population  estimated  at  192,700) 


Total  cost 


Cost  per  capita 


Loading  station  site 

Loading  station 

Collection  stables 

Trestle  and  driveway 

Grading,  fill,  electric  wiring 
Railway  siding 

4  garbage  cars 

34  garbage  wagons 

24  rubbish  wagons 

5  special  rubbish  wagons .  . 

Horses 

Harness  and  stable  supplies 

Office  equipment 

Steel  lockers 

Totals 


$  10,136.40 

14,101.64 

42,260.81 

2,153.10 

2,379.54 

3,161.60 

7,564.00 

7,151.10 

3,466.50 

1,625.00 

24,000.00 

5,484.31 

522.51 

310.00 


$0,043 
0.073 
0.219 
0.011 
0.012 
0.016 
0.039 
0.037 
0.018 
0.003 
0.125 
0.028 
0.003 
0.002 


$123,316.51 


$0,639 


13.  Calgary. — Table  74  gives  the  costs  and  other  particulars  for 
electric  trucks  of  several  sizes,  at  Calgary,  during  1914. 

14.  Toledo. — Table  75  gives  the  cost  of  garbage  collection  in 
Toledo,  Ohio,  in  1918  and  1919.  The  collection  is  organized  under 
the  Street  Cleaning  Department.  The  city  is  divided  into  three 
main  districts,  each  in  charge  t  i  a  superintendent.  There  are  28 
wagon  districts,  each  generally  served  by  one  man  and  a  2-horse 
wagon  of  3  cu.  yd.  capacity.  The  wagons  generally  take  one  load  a 
day.  In  a  few  districts  the  wagons  have  two  men  and  take  two  loads 
a  day. 

15.  Los  Angeles. — In  1917-18  the  cost  of  collection  with  2^-ton 
trucks  on  long  hauls  was  $2.76  per  ton,  and  using  teams  on  short 
hauls  was  $2.00  per  ton.     The  long  hauls  are  from  6  to  9  miles;   the 


"Municipal  Journal,  November  11,  1915. 


218    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


0) 

O  (N   00 

o 

00  l>   '* 

d 

00 

o 

+J            03 

00    00    (M 

00 

CO   05 

1— 1     I— 1    i-H 

TtH 

CO   00 

m 

(N  o  o 
odd 

o 

CO   CO 

d  d 

m 

^ 

m 

^ 

p 

++ 

.-H     t^     O 

00 

1-1    CD 

Pi 

^    ^    CO 

CO 

C^    1-1 

b, 

1  |"S 

to 

lO  o  o 

CO 

TjH     lO 

C 

d  d  d 

d 

d  d 

K 

^ 

«^ 

^ 

o 

O 

r-l     CO    .-1 

lO 

n 

""       t.     "^ 

QO   C<)    o 

o 

T*(      1-1 

°      D.     S 

'^  CO  ^ 

>o 

CO   o 

o 

Q       ft      O 

t>^  d  d 

00 

lO   CO 

s% 

m 

m 

IM    t^    CO 

c<> 

i>  t- 

-t> 

lO  o  »o 

1— ( 

CO   CO 

o 

t^  t>^  c^ 

b- 

S3  c<i 

1-1  o  to 

00 

03   O 

"3 

T-H^^  >0   <N 

00 

(N^TtH 

o 

Cf  CO   <M 

b- 

CO  !> 

E-i 

Tt* 

t-   00 

m 

m 

m 

0) 

O   CO  l> 

c 

i    §^^    «   to 

^  "S   o  "S   o 

rH    d    C<1 

^ 

05 

- 

■ 

Tt<     O     Tt 

oc 

CO   '^ 

<^ 

+j             ^ 

rfi    .-H    C 

IC 

(M  m 

PQ 

aEf 

^    O    C 

d  d  c 

c 

o  o 

O 
6. 

m 

m 

>                  9© 

O 

CO  (M   5 

(N 

<M    CO 

S; 

+3       t,     * 

(M 

r^  CO 

o 

CO     4)     r; 

Tt*  1-1  c 

CC 

1>    CO 

g 

6  ""s 

^  d  c 

,_ 

(M    CO 

H 

9# 

€^ 

>                  «/& 

o 

lO   tH   '^ 

a: 

lo  CO 

O 

-t> 

lO  o  t^ 

05 

iO  o 

o 

CO   (N   (N 

2 

T-H    Tt^ 

i-(  T-i  cq 

'^ 

CD    lO 

"ca 

i>  a>  oc 

■* 

q^  (N 

o 

l>r  rn" 

C 

di  aS 

Eh 

<M 

o: 

^    lO 

m 

m 

>            m 

o 

-tJ 

0) 

fl    a 

O    5 

■•+3   c 

o    a. 

QJ      C 

c^ 

22  = 

a 

t^  00 

fe 

^ 

;- 
^ 

1-1  1-1 
O   OS 
I— 1   1—1 

_^   53    ^ 
in  '^  '^ 

a 

o   o 

"c 

(4-(     C4_| 

-^    fl    c 

+= 

CO    aj 

fl    a>    o3 

O 

Is    03 

o3    += 

H 

^   ^ 

H  H 

53   a  0 

^ 

O     -     OJ 

H  02  Ph 

'^  -a 

-  0) 

£3  •« 

O  d 

•43  ft 

^  a 

ftO 


^  >> 

.  o 

•*  s 

00  o 

r,  fa 

II  N 

2.S 

o  a 

t-  o 

bf   o 

03  P 

C  T3 

«  2 

"a  "3 

o  o 

H  H 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


219 


average  is  8  miles.  The  operating  cost  of  the  trucks  ranged  from 
$210  to  $250  per  month,  including  fuel,  wages,  repairs,  and  depre- 
ciation, but  not  the  wages  of  the  two  garbage  collectors  who  accom- 
pany the  truck.  The  trucks  haul  2f  tons  per  load,  and  make  at  least 
two  trips  per  day. 


Table  72. — Cost  of  Collecting  Garbage  and  Ashes  in  Trenton,  N.  J 
March,  1912,  to  March,  1913; 
and  also  a  summary  for  1914  to  1918,  inclusive 


Labor 

Feed 

Horses 

Harness  and  repairs 

Wagons  and  repairs 

Veterinary  and  drugs 

Horse  shoeing 

Light 

Repairs,  plant  and  biiildings 

Miscellaneous 

Supplies 

Team  hire 

Totals 

Totals      for   years      ending 
March  Slst: 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 


Garbage  * 


Total 
cost 


56,819.83 

4,129.61 

290.00 

288 . 99 

1,328.15 

32.75 

515.00 

30.27 

179.07 

578.48 

12.13 


$14,204.28 


$13,437.37 
13,340.34 
14,679.92 
17,193.13 
21,935.09 


Cost 
per  ton 


528 
319 
022 
022 
103 
003 
039 
002 
014 
045 
001 


$1 . 098 


$0.94 
0.94 
0.99 
1.07 
1.45 


Per- 
centage 


47.9 
29.2 
2.0 
2.0 
9.4 
0.2 
3.6 
0.2 
1.3 
4.1 
0.1 


100.0 


Ashes  t 


Total 
cost 


$6,372.01 

3,493.93 

290 . 00 

270 . 66 

1,250.35 

34.40 

543 . 02 

24.63 

179.07 

574.63 


138.00 


$13,175.97 


$17,863.02 
18,360.14 
18,727.47 
20,881.67 
29,523.16 


Cost 
per  ton 


$0,166 
0.091 
0.008 
0.007 
0.032 
0.001 
0.014 
0.001 
0.005 
0.015 

0.004 


$0,344 


$0.46 
0.44 
0.42 
0.45 
0.61 


Per 
centage 


48.2 
26.6 
2.2 
2.1 
9.5 
0.3 
4.1 
0.2 
1.4 
4.4 

1.0 


100.0 


*  Total  tonnage  of  garbage  in  1913=12,930. 
t  Total  tonnage  of  ashes  in  1913  =38,470. 

Rubbish  is  collected  at  a  cost  of  96  cents  per  cubic  yard.  In  the 
short-haul  zone  the  collection  was  made  with  teams,  with  day  and 
night  shifts.  The  day  shift  collected  2200  tons  per  month  at  a  cost  of 
$2.15  per  ton;  the  night  shift  collected  2800  tons  per  month  at  a  cost 
of  $1.18  per  ton.* 


*  From  Engineering  and  Contracting,  September  11,  1918 


220    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  73. — Cost  of  Collection  of  Garbage  in   Sewickley,   Pa. 
Average  Yearly  Charge,  March  1,  1910,  to  December  31,  1914 


Total  cost 


Cost  per  capita 


Labor 

Horse  feed 

Blacksmith.  . 
Insurance. .  . 

Cans 

Miscellaneous 

Totals .  . 


$1432 
400 
124 

37 
440 

50 


$0,286 
0.080 
0.025 
0.007 
0.088 
0.010 


$0,496 


Table    74.  —  Average    Operating    Costs    and    Fixed    Charges 

for  Two  1-ton,  Two  3-ton,  and  Two  5-ton  Electric  Trucks 

at  Calgary,  Alberta 

Data  for  1914 


Items 


Two 
1-ton 
trucks 


Two 

3-ton 
trucks 


Two 
5-ton 
trucks 


Monthly 
average 
cost  per 
vehicle 


Supplies 

Repairs 

Energy 

Garage 

Garage  employees 

Driver's  wages 

Interest,  sinking  fund,  and  depreciation . 

Storage  battery  department 

Average  cost  per  month 

Average  number  of  days  in  service  per 

month 

Average  number  of  miles  per  month . .  . 
Months  in  service  during  the  year .... 


$0.50 
30.05 
11.83 
10.00 

28.75 
77.80 
50.83 
14.58 
216.08 

26 

722.5 

9 


$0.65 
91.14 
15.71 
10.00 
37.75 
85.80 
68.23 
23.61 
271.46 

25.5 

543.5 

9 


191 
33 

10 
42 

80 

88 

27 

258 


75 
14 
19 
00 
,75 
,00 
,54 
.78 
.99 


$0.63 
104.11 
20.24 
10.00 
36.42 
81.20 
69.20 
21.99 
248.84 


26 

539.5 

9 


The  cost  for  collection  depends  on  a  number  of  local  factors,  such 
as  character  of  refuse  material,  climate,  frequency  of  collection,  length 
of  haul,  and  size  of  wagon.  The  costs  per  ton  for  loading  and  hauling 
various  refuse  materials,  for  various  methods  of  transportation,  and 
for  transfer  stations,  average  approximately  as  shown  in  Table  76. 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


221 


The  figures  in  Table  70  are  intended  to  give  only  roughly  approx- 
imate costs  before  the  War,  and  should  not  be  applied  to  any  particular 
local  situation  without  careful  reconsideration.  A  special  study 
is  required  in  order  to  estimate  the  cost  for  each  locality,  but  the 
information  contained  in  this  chapter  may  be  of  material  assistance 
for  the  preliminaries  of  a  specific  case. 

Table   75. — Annual  Co.st  of   Garbage   Collection   in  Toledo,    Ohio, 
AS  Shown  by  City  Report.s 


Supervision 

Labor,  collecting 

Miscellaneous  supplies 

Horse-shoeing 

Blacksmith  and  wagon  repairs . 

Barnff  of  $41,609.87 

Barn  j\%  of  $50,378.95 

Collection . . 

Tons  collected 

Cost  per  ton  for  collection 

Average  length  of  haul 

Cost  per  ton-mile  for  collection 


$  3,225.63 

$  5,127.51 

40,310.14 

50,770.24 

1,725.27 

1,001.00 

2,658.65 

1,571.30 

2,127.90 

26,600.00 

35,257.37 

$73,432.34 

$96,942.67 

20,320 

19,990 

$3.61 

$4.87 

4  miles 

4  miles 

$0.90 

$1.22 

This  table  includes  no  allowance  for  fixed  or  general  overhead  charges. 

Table  76. — Costs  of  Loading  and  Team  Haul,  Transportation,  and 
Transfer  Stations 

Data  for  1914 


Loading  and  team  haul: 


Transportation: 


Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Manure 

Mixed  refuse . 


Street  railway. 
Steam  railway. 

Barge 

Motor  truck .  . 


Transfer  stations :  Cost  of  operation . 


Cost  per 

ton 

$1 

00  to  $3 .  50 

1 

00  to 

2 

30 

2 

00  to 

6 

50 

1 

50  to 

2 

50 

1 

00  to 

3 

00 

0 

30  to 

0 

50 

0 

10  to 

0 

25 

0 

20  to 

0 

40 

0 

15  to 

0.30 

0 .  10  to    0 .  20 


222     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

16.  Paterson. — The   costs   of   collection   in   Paterson,    N.    J.,   in 
1920,  exclusive  of  overhead  charges,  were  approximately  as  follows: 

Yardage  Cost  per  cubic  yard 

Electric  trucks 51,026  53  cents 

Gasoline  trucks 16,383  58 

Horse  wagons. 86,270  74 


G.— PRIVATE  COLLECTION  COSTS 

Private  scavengers  are  more  often  found  in  small  than  in  large 
cities.  In  the  latter  the  cost  of  collection  to  the  individual  served 
is  generally  greater  than  when  the  municipality  does  the  work.  Costs 
of  private  collections  of  garbage  in  several  Ohio  cities  were  stated  to 
have  been  as  low  as  10  cents  per  family  per  week.  In  small  residential 
towns  in  lUinois,  the  cost  of  collecting  garbage  by  scavengers  varies 
from  $1  to  $4  per  family  per  month.  In  some  instances,  the  removal 
of  ashes  is  included  in  this  figure. 

H.— IMPROVED  RECORDS  DESIRABLE 

The  recording  of  unit  cost  data  for  loading,  hauling,  transferring, 
and  transporting  refuse  materials,  is  of  sufficient  value  to  merit  more 
attention  by  city  officials  than  is  now  usually  given.  More  records 
should  be  kept  and  more  information  published  in  the  annual  reports, 
so  that  useful  comparisons  may  be  made  and  a  check  secured  on  the 
efficiency  of  local  work.  The  costs  should  be  kept  and  recorded  in  as 
much  detail  as  practicable,  in  order  to  cover  each  element  of  the  work, 
and  also  the  work  done,  if  possible  in  man-hours  and  ton-miles.  A 
suggested  standard  form  for  cost  statistics  has  been  published  by  the 
American  Public  Health  Association  and  the  American  Society  for 
Municipal  Improvements,  and  is  reproduced  at  the  end  of  this  chapter. 

I.— SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

In  order  to  make  a  fair  estimate  of  the  cost  of  collecting  and 
delivering  refuse,  we  must  consider  all  the  various  parts  of  the  work. 
We  should  first  know  what  is  necessary  to  load  the  wagon  properly, 
under  the  conditions  existing  in  the  specific  town;  and  this  will  vary 
chiefly  with  the  season,  with  the  cost  of  apparatus,  the  location  of  the 
can,  and  the  cost  of  labor.  We  should  then  estimate  the  work  of 
hauling,  which  varies  with  the  kind  of  wagons  or  trucks  used,  whether 
horse-drawn  or  motor-driven,  and  with  the  length  of  haul.     The  cost 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION  223 

will  depend  also  on  the  rate  of  travel,  influenced  by  the  grade  of  the 
territory  and  the  character  and  paving  of  the  streets,  and  on  the  cost 
of  the  team  and  driver,  or  of  the  motor  and  mechanic. 

The  cost  of  transportation  from  the  transfer  stations  to  the  points 
of  final  disposal  depends  on  the  particular  method  adopted  and  the 
distance  to  which  the  refuse  is  to  be  transported.  These  methods  are: 
Conveyance  by  trolley,  barge,  steam  railroad,  or  motor  truck. 
Detailed  estimates  should  be  made  of  several  of  the  most  available 
means  of  transportation,  in  order  to  discover  the  most  economical  one. 

As  the  collection  of  city  refuse  is  sometimes  the  most  expensive 
part  of  the  refuse  removal  problem,  it  is  quite  important  to  make 
these  cost  estimates  in  as  much  detail  as  practicable.  The  selection 
of  the  most  economical  method  of  final  disposal,  as  will  be  shown  in 
Chapter  XIII,  may  depend  on  the  cost  of  collection  and  transpor- 
tation. 

Although  the  data  in  this  chapter  will  help  in  making  estimates, 
the  recent  large  increases  in  the  cost  of  labor  and  materials  requires 
special  caution  in  adjusting  the  prices  prevailing  before  the  War  to 
those  relating  to  present  conditions. 

As  an  aid  to  judge  of  the  probable  costs,  we  add  Table  77,  which 
gives  the  cost  data  in  a  number  of  American  cities  and  for  various 
years  from  1910  to  1920.  The  information  is  given  for  mixed  refuse 
and  garbage  separately,  and  for  ashes  and  rubbish,  both  mixed  and 
separated. 

We  wish  here  again  to  emphasize  the  desirabilitj''  of  recording 
information  which  allows  the  cost  to  be  estimated  independently  of 
wages  and  team  hire,  and  therefore,  of  the  variations  both  in  the 
wages  and  in  the  length  of  working  days.  This  is  done  by  recording 
the  efficiency  of  the  labor  through  time  and  work  elements.  In 
other  words,  when  we  record  the  ton-miles  per  hour  for  hauling  by 
various  means,  both  when  collecting  and  delivering  for  final  disposal, 
we  shall  be  able,  not  only  to  compare  the  efficiencies  under  different 
organizations  and  conditions  and  by  different  means,  but  also  to  make 
safer  estimates  of  cost,  merely  by  multiplying  the  hourly  cost  of  labor, 
prevaihng  at  the  time  when  the  estimates  are  made,  by  such  factors. 
We  have  endeavored  to  give  such  figures  where  they  have  been 
available. 


224     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


M 

Eh 

o 

I— I 
a 

<3 


o 
O 


o 
U 


aj 

c^ 

e 

•    <N 

•    i« 

•    CT    OC 

•00 O^---00 

•    CT 

•    CO    OC 

•  •* t»t»     •     •     -.-1 

c 

:^ 

•  CO 

'.  ^     '.'.'.'.'.  d  o     '■'■'■  ^ 

h 

•o 

•  •* 

CO    CT 

•  t^ 

CO      Tt 

o 

K 

H 

>< 

-   (M 

.-H     CO 

CO 

B. 

«« 

03 

U 

■*    lO 

>-(    (M 

CO    00    T)H 

C0CT"*00-*Ot^'*O'-ii-iC0Tj< 

o 
H 

lO    CO 

CO    CT 

00   O    CD 

COCO'OOO'-it^CT'-iCN-*'-!'*'-! 

(M    U5 

CO   lO   >o 

cocoi-ii-Hr-iiOfHcococo-^in-* 

03 

tH    IC 

lO     -H 

Th     -H      lO 

COOOOCOCOiO^'OCTt^CT       •■* 

P< 

TO    <M 

l-H     •^Jt 

.-(•*■* 

(N(N(M(NrHCOC^I(M(NCqiM       -CO 

o 

O    C 

o  o 

o  o  © 

ooooooooooo     -o 

»a 

(M    In. 

lO    ■* 

'OCT-* 

COOOIMOCOOOCT-^COOOO 

t^     TtH 

CO    CO 

•*    IM    O 

Or-lO-*OTt<COCO.-lcOOOO 

"3    -t> 

rt    00 

O    •»»i 

•*    00    CO 

■*THt^CTCOIN(MCO00CO00iO-* 

*:;  ■== 

o  oc 

■#  CO  CO 

iot^OCToo'noCT'oe<it»0'0 

o    o 

to     T-H 

rt     Tt< 

•*  CO  t^ 

iMCTlNOOi-HCOOCTCTt^COO'-f 

H    " 

rt  o 

CO   o 

■*  CO  CO 

OOCO«0>CCOCTO(^'nCTCT'*0 

(N    CC 

CD    CT    •* 

lOCOIN-*           ■^.-HCOCO'-ilMt^iO 

Sl^ 

CO    (N    CO 

a 

03 

§  .s  <« 

o 

•    O 

S  „  ^ 

■   tr. 

lO 

lO    "5 

lO 

o   3  -a 

CO  CO 

(M 

Tj.    ■* 

g-^ 

i; 

0) 

Ef 

lO 

t^   O 

::::;:::::::  o 

rs   M 

r 

O   CS 

5     C3 

< 

o 

O  c^ 

n 

(N 

l^  t^ 

CO 

O 

CO 

.-H     l-H 

o  e 

lO  CO 

■*    CT 

(N    ■*    IN 

O   CD  ■*   >0  O   O 

i-HCTCTiOOO     S"^ 

11 

^  a 

CO    .- 

CO  lO  c<: 

CO    (N    CO    O    O    O 

i-i00C0t^iO.-H<S_ 

CD    lO 

lO    CC 

O    (N 

O*  O 

O   t^    CT 
lo"  t^."  O 

CO    "-I    CO    00    00    CO 

ic  00  cd"  tC  N  oc" 

9.  'X  '^.   "l    °    rH    o    "2 
■*•-<'  00    O    (N    (M    S     9 
•*>OCOCOCOi-lo 

'J. 

H   o 

■*  cc 

CT    >0    C£ 

^  ^  ,-,  t~. 

"O"     S 

O     0) 

CO    ;5 

-c  fc^ 

c 

o 

CO  .- 

(N  ty. 

tH    lO    C 

OO'^t^-OOOOOOOO 

o 

lO   ^ 

CO  t^ 

■*    ■*    C 

SonP^ctoooooo 

-* 

l>    CT 

CT    ■*    C 

CO 

(2 

M  <- 

o  c: 

t^  o  c 

COOOI^T)<^0-*COlOOO 

CO    CT- 

iC    ■fl 

■*   .-H  b- 

(NCOOlO(N'*>l3-<*lt^-*ira 

■* 

t^       Tt 

lO  l>  b- 

(NiMi-liO           t-iiomiO-*-* 

CO           O    CO    CT    O 

>-l              (N     r-l     T-l     <N 

b 

1     CT 

CT  CT 

^^  00  CT 

oooocoioi     1     1     icor^CToo 

i-HTHT-i»Oi-<CT'OC0CT'-'»-t»-'»-< 

,-(    CT 

CT    CT 

>H 

CT     r^ 

rH    1-H 

i-H     »-H     r- 1     Oj     ^^     Oj     Oj     Oj     Oj     ' — '     ' — '     ' — t     ' — ' 

X. 

.2 

a 

>. 

; 

? 

« 

' 

: 

c 

-  s 

^ 

: 

a 
o 
O 

o 

03    - 

'"'  -o" 

.      j«  5  •-   a  £            «            g 

o 

4J     - 

63  o  : 
2   > 

o 

m 

js  .2 

^          o3(U>i:o--3               a' 

ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


225 


•  c 

5       • 

•  oi  ira 

■  6    ■ 

•     •  cc  O) 

cc 

•   IN       • 

.     .  ^  o 

'" 

CO 

CO 

M 

M    ifl   o    O   t^ 

rt      •  O  >«  ■<l<   "O 

X   (N    O    «    C^ 

CO     •  t^  CO  CO  O) 

O    IN    •*    r-l    rH 

CO        •    00    -"I*    rH    cc 

CO 

00   IN 

05    00 

o 

"-1 

-1     ■5t< 

o 

O    O 

o  o 

o 

O    "O 

o  c 

c 

" 

O 

O    IN 

CM 

IT 

c 

" 

O 

o  o 

>n  oc 

OC^           1 

c 

t^ 

r 

« 

O   00 

ct. 

f^ 

05 

"5 

oo"  IN 

CO"    Tj 

a 

00 

t~ 

■*  ro 

cc 

W 

IT 

ir 

00 

CM 

CM 

o 

o 

IX 

cc 

c- 

cc 

CC 

CC 

■^ 

CO 

o 

00 

CO 

05 

t> 

•*  oc 

o 

c 

a>  c 

cc 

ir 

o- 

r^ 

00 

l(- 

c 

a- 

t- 

cc 

05    C 

Tl 

c 

05  cc 

cc 

N 

r- 

Tl 

o 

c 

tc  cc 

cc 

c 

lo  oc 

cc 

a- 

-:( 

■^ 

c^ 

r^ 

o- 

M 

m  oc 

h- 

c 

IN    -fl 

1 

CC 

cr 

ir 

lO 

C<5 

r^ 

o- 

.- 

~  -- 

'm   ^ 

^_ 

3 

o  o 

C 

o  •*  c 

r- 

c 

« 

c 

o 

o  c 

c 

r-. 

or 

o 

o  oc 

cc 

l>  c 

0- 

cc 

CV 

0 

0 

o 

o 

CO    ■- 

o 

'^ 

■*  cc 

t-- 

IT 

c 

TJH 

c 

t^ 

o  t^ 

or 

r^ 

CD      Tj 

cc 

f- 

r^ 

3 

cc 

CO 

■*  IC 

c- 

(N    1> 

t> 

h- 

r-- 

r^ 

0- 

•* 

•* 



o 

(N 

o  r^ 

o- 

Ol    t^    U" 

cr 

^ 

or 

0 

O   Oi  0 

CC 

1 

IN   ■- 

C5 

Ol  o- 

CT 

Oi  Oi  a- 

0 

0 

a 

0 

O)   05  o 

0 

05 

r~i 

C 

>1     ca 

>H    2 

-41 

: 

■ 

: 

: 

: 

1 

- 

P 

c 
o 

■> 

c 

■g  t-^ 

K  OS 

- 

: 

- 

: 

a 

c 

.         0 

-      M 

- 

SI 

c 
s 

J^  o 


«* 


•2  t^ 


c       i: 


O  ^ 


S  i 


0.  >>  c^ 


J3    E  '-^ 


>"  •  S   S   °  "  i  5 

■a  OQ  ^  -f,  -o  •-  a 

-S  -o  "S    «  S  S  * 

^     S     O     Qj  03    C^  t- 

^   §   >-   I.  -pci  3? 
.2       "gcM32-^ 

J            g     S   '3   .S  •§     ^;  " 

2       °Q-" 


o 

o 

1= 

-« 

a 

J3 

3 

S 

3 

a 

-*J 

ID 
Ml 

O 
a 

X! 

■6 

a 
o 

s 

oj 

o-so>'g>SS-S 


(-      QQ     ^ 

■SOS 


C"-  ^    *J    o 


o  a 


^  -a 

-  >  " 

cj  ^,  o 

fc  S.-3 

"^  =  S 

2  o  S 

o  a 

O  M 

^  o  -t; 


a>    S  = 


ao 


'^     »,  O 

O     S   ^ 
«     ®     m 


m  .5    O    m 


'^"  ■"  s  s 


fcH         tJ         t>         t> 


dn  o  a  a 


e 

3 

P,  C.) 

S2 

00 

O! 

o 

in 

■o 
>> 

>> 

Ml 
M 

a 

e3 

1 

3 

>> 

03 

Ml 
03 

ID 

pE 

V 

•a 

CI 

^ 

0 

Ml 
oi 

c 

h 

OJ 

fi 

s 

03 

o 

n 

a 

Oi 

.Q 

in 

03 

J3 
J3 

C5 

1 
CO 

a 

s 

o 

cs 

cS 
O 

ID 

Ml 

a 

? 

03 

*-i 

o 

i> 

; 

3 

c 

? 

m 

V 

0. 

Ml 

btl 

o 

4J 

"0 

Ml 

'^ 

o 

13 

01 

cc 

-C 

3 

o 
— 
"o 
o 

be 

O 

3 
M 

J3 

1 

"o 

01 
bC 

O 

c 
S 

ft 

■a 
c 

03 

n 

ft 

"S 
S 

'S 

o 

ft 

"o 
■3 

c 

03 

c 
'3) 
a 

M) 
CB 

TJ 

H) 

,3 
'0 
ft 

ID 

H 

a) 

o 

V 

> 

n 

o 

1-1 

.2 

in 

T3 

£3 

n 

M 

H 

o 
•a 
n 

OJ 

C3 

IP 

o 
C) 

< 

w 

m 

03 
0 

C 

1 

03 

cd 

c 
1 

S 

o 

2 

^e 

d 

= 

S 

> 
< 

3 

J2 

« 

226     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


o 


o 

o 


fe 

w 

a) 
o    C 

^ 

H    g 

H 

o 

W 

H 

f  ) 

C3    -ki 

< 

^§ 

O 

« 

H 

<D 

S 

ts 

<3 

fi.S  „ 

a 

■«  _-  ,s 

ai 

||s 

<i 

<J 

« 

W 

H 

-^      Ml 

o  -a 


CO    t^    »0    lO    "O    05    -^    CO 
OsO'Tt^Ot^oOOSiO 

0'-iT-i(Nodo'-< 

■*  05  ro  lo     ■     •     .     . 

CO    M    LO   1^ 

dodo     ■  •     • 


COt^iO>O00C0iOO5iOi-lTt< 
0JOTt<O00<MC000(Nt>.(N 

O'-H"-l<N'-l(>)IMC0T-<r-i(N' 


00    CO    CO 

d  o  o 


"C   CO   00   IM 
OOOOOt-iOOO 


CO  rt 


O   00   O   t^   CO 


OCOlC^HTHt^lOi-H^Hi-HC^ 

■^OSCOO'-itOOSOit^O'* 

coi-Hoiocot-iN-^cocDoa 
CO  i^  i-T  o"  t>  ro  IN  i>  OS  <N  "-T 

T-Hi-HlMCOtDtNOOOi-icO-^ 


lO   iC   lO    lO 
•H    i-H    .-<    (N   Ol    <N   (N 


lO  tc  <N  r^ 

•<1<    05  t~  (N 

CO    «0  rH  lO 

oT.  CO  --H  o 


lO    CO   O 
l>  o  t^ 

CD    CO    05 


2  "3   O    lU  ;i, 

o  o  o   o   &§<-,■■§. 
oo^''-  ncoo  Q, 

O  O  CO  lO  o    " 

"O  in  o"  o  _.    II   d  5". 
cocou:)^^   13^-S 


I  03  00 

05  —I  -^ 

l-H  O  O) 

O  i-H  ■-( 


CO    lO    •*    05    O    "-H    O! 
_         _      TtHT-Ht^COrHir-JCO 

ooot^co-*Ti<ioi-i'5t< 
■*  CO  lo"  •*"  lo  00  CO  cq"  lO  o>  00 

t-Hr-lrtrtC0lOC^(Mi-li-l,-l 


O'H'-l'-IOOr-lOi'-llOOCOO 


i-Ot^OOOl'OCOCOOl'-il^OO 
OO05C505050505050505 


O  H 


pq  ffi  h^l 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


227 


CD    IN 

■     r^      rH     (»     r-     1 

—     « 

TO    O) 

-    C-l     .-1    t^     00    05 

"c 

r-i     rt 

H  c^  o  o  o 

O 

l« 

00    "5    ■*    'O   1^ 

•  O   >--i   t»   0>  O   T)<   t> 

,-(  o  «  o  to 

■  t^  to  t^  lO  t^  r^  ■(■ 

•       .§ 

r-i  ^  d  ^  d 

•  d  d  -i  d  d  d  c 

>             '■+J 

«« 

a> 

.2 

IM    IN 

o     ■ 

■  t^  1- 

t^    to    O    h- 

00  to 

lO       ■ 

■    t^    <N    CS    O    TO    TO 

03 

rH     v^ 

(N       • 

•    .-1    tH    TO    -^    .-1    — 1 

O 

r  \ 

^ 

C 

1-1     ■* 

■  o  lo  ■*  lo  tc  r^  r- 

c 

lO    U5 

■lOtOCOTOtOt^WO 

O 

^° 

■ddd^ddoc 

P. 

rH     to     to 

o  o  o  o  c 

t^   CO   to 

o  o  o  c  c 

J> 

TO    d    TO 

0(NOtOTOOtOt^C 

'C 

OJ    O    TO 

t^OlOOOOOOff-lOC 

C 

TO    00    00 

toioooo.-ic^oaj'^ 

, 

rT    ^"   C- 

-h"  X    - 

to  »o  r^  cc  (m"  -- 

C3 

TO    TO    Tj< 

lO     i-H     t^     00     O)     Tj<     .- 

lO  r- 

^ 

I—* 

Tt<    TO    ■*    Tt< 

f> 

—       m 

XJ 

n  CO 

M 

TO    CO 

lo  lo  'o  "o  a 

3 

f-(    »-t 

T- 

,- 

^ 

m 

>> 

p 

."tf 

tf 

o 

a; 

S3 

-J 

Cq       T- 

o 

O    TO    O    C^I    u- 

Tt 

c 

O)  oa  oc 

o> 

t^ 

00    O    rf    C 

lO  c 

OJ 

>0   O    If 

(N 

tc 

.  <^ 

O  05  tc 

.  ^  '^ 

d 

t/} 

o 

» 

to   TO   OC 

t^ 

OC 

"  <>) 

"  o  ^ 

"  tc 

"  lO  tc 

nd 

n 

<M 

TO    tc 

t^ 

a 

Tj- 

-* 

00    OC 

CN 

IM 

.O    u- 

to  — 

o 

_o 

->1 

S 

OC 

O 

■* 

O   TO    0- 

<N 

o 

CI   ■* 

c<- 

T 

O    to    OJ   TO 

0) 

(^ 

.  ■* 

u- 

.  O    rt 

_  t^ 

lO 

'o 

O 

t^ 

c 

"  d  to  tc 

"  c 

O 

(N 

•* 

t^ 

c^ 

N 

c^ 

c- 

0- 

c 

lO 

lO 

a> 

C 

O 

c 

c 

c 

tO    r- 

IT 

0) 

c 

O 

c 

c 

lO    t^ 

OC 

[^ 

.  ™. 

CT 

c 

_  c 

u- 

.  "^ 

_  f 

IT 

^„ 

"  ■*" 

OC 

c 

ir 

"  ir 

"  t^ 

"  rQ 

"  tc 

c 

tc 

to 

c^ 

o- 

C^) 

c- 

tc 

t> 

(M 

TO    lO    IT 

IT 

_s 

_  1 

OC 

05    C-1 

o- 

rt  tc 

OC 

o- 

£ 

b- 

OC 

0- 

o- 

a 

cft  a 

o 

o  o~ 

5 

0- 

5- 

CT 

a- 

a- 

5 

i 

■  a- 

rM 

o 

T) 

rt 

-►^ 

a 

o 

00 

OS 
00 

^ 

^ 

, 

pq 

'3 

. 

a  > 

■c 

z 

C 

C 

: 

: 

> 

03 

E 

:    § 

1 

e« 

.  c 

.  c 

;z 

-2 

ji 

0 

s 

t 

f 

S 

bl 

1       _c 

■W     ■" 

oi 

c 

> 

E 

^ 

fl 

t 

0 

;s   c 

c 

Fh 

ffi 

c; 

o  ^ 

C 

(X 

cc 

t- 

H 

c   2 


^1 


*"  a) 


05    £ 

C3      - 


Z  £  .? 


•^  O      O 


O  =    ■« 


E-i  -a 


S  S 


<u    a)    o    C    tS 


S  .S 


"S  o  «  ij 


3     c3     S     «   J= 

o  •-  — 


^     O     M    C 


o   ^   ■<     O 


o  IM  rt;    o  -*^ 

=*   ^   S 
§^  g 

S  2-- 


T3 

■    S    X      ■ 


g     O     03 

§  s  >  ^ 


1-5      O 


O  t3 


?;  s-  > 


■a  .b 


>  ■  ■ 
°  to- 


^-^^Z   fi:S 


•<j    >.        to 

ffl     03    >>  <M 
_n     .,    C    i^ 


O  c3  to  X! 

(3  ^  ■-<  ^ 

J3  03  >)  2 

■^  "tS  "O  pi 

_D  O  rtj  C 


S   2 


^   c  "^  -a  .2 


MS     M>  "o     M    c     2 

t-l 

0)     ^     03     o     03   .S   -g 

^  »  f    o  -S  .2   ^ 

is 

g   ^     C3     &     03   J3    ^ 

C3 

"  -^  O  H  O  H  <; 

§  ^  s 
§  - « i 

«'2^^. 

o3  ,D  fc^  -c^ 
fe  —  03  !- 
^    O     >>    S 

§  2  *  S. 

o-S-gSq 

°      5      <D 

S  =«  c  ^-^ 
«   ^  2 


s  ^ 


O     "^ 


2^ 


T3     O     O 


03    m    X 

^  -  -3 
^   o  a 


H 

o 

3 

tu 

o 

ro 

u 

.2 

S 

— '    03  J3 


m  S  +^ 

o  S  t3 

-r)  O  t, 

2  +=  03 

-3  a,  P. 

o  2  (D 

C  CO  ►iJ  H  ^ 


,2  .o    (B 


i3  M 
O  03 
0)   ^ 


228     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


-S 

"~ 

■~~ 

's 

IN 

•     ■  a, 

00  N  CO     -00 

C^ 

•     ■  o 

00    (N    CO       -to 

a 

o 

'^ 

e© 

d    ^     rH         :     d 

-a 

05 

•  to  t^ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

to    O    CO    i-t    Til 

K 

03 

CO 

•  rt  CO 

(N 

CC 

CO  ira  00  o  to 

H 

>< 

d 

•  d  d 

CO 

r~i 

r~i 

d  d  d  d  d 

»< 
H 

69 

O 

«D 

to       •    ■*    CO 

■*   ^   IN       ■   CO   ^ 

to     rt 

o 

Ol 

<N       •    iO   O 

1*     CO     O          ■     .-H     ,-1 

CO  00 

d 

g    ^o- 

d     d     rH         !    ,-^     ^ 

d  d 

^ 

o 

«   OS   00    ■* 

00  CO  d  o  lO  •* 

CO  •* 

0. 

o 

Cl   O    CO   to 

•-I    C^    ■*    IN    IN    O 

00  o 

03 

^ 

d  d  d  o 

<6  <6  d  o  o  o 

d  t-i 

O 

«« 

to 

to    O    O    11 

o 

o 

CO 

■*    CO    O   O    O    CO 

CV|    00 

00 

«S   O    O    'f 

IN 

03 

CO 

^    .-1    CO    O    O   to 

cS    -^ 

CO 

to  ^  d  10 

>o 

OC 

lO 

o  CO  00  lO  d  CO 

uj  irj 

■* 

00      to      to       Tt 

^ 

o 

05 

CO    IN    CO    CO    O    0- 

CO    CO 

o   o 

o 

CO   rt    IN    c< 

CC 

•o 

CO    >0    i-H    03    O    to 

co_  q_ 

H   " 

oT 

CO   IN    Os"  to 

co" 

Tjt 

IN 

oo'  oT  CC  ao  O  tr. 
tH    (N    "5    CO    .-H 

lO   1^ 

? 

- 

a» 

-2 

0)     n 

65 

xim 
1,  in 
les 

s 
.a 

iO 

-2      P 

r^n 
t^ 

lo 

"5 
IN 

i> 

LT 

•^ 

lO 

IN 

ut 

"5 

•O    lO    CO 

lO 

Appro 

hau 

mi 

8 

o 

S 

a 

d 

d 

■* 

IN 

(6  6  6 

o 

,_, 

1 

S 

c 

(N 

(M 

1 

<a 

c 

lO 

lO 

rt    O 

o 

c 

rt 

■*    O    00    lO    Q 
00    OS    CO    O    O 

5     03 
1^ 

Tj 

■* 

00 

m 

CO    to 

CO 

c 

O 

a 

CO 

■* 

» 

■*.  ■*. 

00 

CO 

00    IN    OS    CO    CO 

■   03 

.a 

a 

OQ 

CO    N 

c<- 

"  cf 

OS    00    t-"  lO    00 

Eh    S 

0. 

IS 

^    lO 

cs 

Tji    lO    CO    CO    ■* 

<o  " 

? 

^ 

to 

o 

^ 

<u 

00 

"I 

t>^ 

to 

O     Tf 

CO   00   o 

to     t. 

to     T)l 

OC 

:i 

02 

M  c 

to      to      Tjl 

CO    C<1 

00    ■* 

o 
-< 

o" 

T)<_    CC 

lO    lO    CO 

t^"  oo"  co" 

t^   IT 

'  CO  CO 

H   o 

I 

-e-o 

o 

(N 

CO  a 

■*  ■*  >o 

OS 

N    CM 

n 

X 

03    i3 

J2 

< 
O 

OC 

< 

O    " 

3 
h 

a 

.2 

3 

CO    00    O    't 

c 

O   O   O   00   O   OC 

00  ira 

03 

lO     to     ^     — 

c 

CM    O    O    CO    O   to 

■*    OS 

-Ti 

IN    05    CO   to 

c 

.  °°.  *". 

a 

IN    •<♦<    O    ■* 

■■* 

CO    CO    OS    CO    to    ^ 

"  c4"  CO 

CO    IN    lO    CC 

c 

O    ^     ^    »0    CO    IT 

00    00 

to                  IN 

rt  rt  rt  CO  ■*  ^ 

o 

eq 

(-1 

a 

CO    O    00    to 

a 

lO    OC    OS    CO      1     1- 

to      00 

03 

,1     rH     —1     —I     OS    >- 

<U 

c 

05    05    05    O" 

5 

OS    OS    OS    OS    "—I    O" 

OS    OS 

>H 

'H     rt     -H     ,-1     OS     rt 

CJ 

s 

a 
C 

f 

c 
1 

? 

i 

c 

5 

C 

.  c 

■*■ 

I 

s 

O 

i: 

0 

a 

> 

a 

c 

XI 

a 
0 
05 

c 

2 

B 

c 

c 

a 

- 

- 

g"   s 

1    I 

4  -  "^ 

2        a 

i 

a 

^ 

O     >     O     0 

eq  W  ^q  tf 

C 
OC 

>< 

H             ^        '^ 

ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION 


229 


•  to 

M 

00 

05 

•   N 

^ 

o 

o 

«» 

^  N- 

>f5 

IN 

Tt< 

05 

r» 

IN 

r^ 

•  o> 

lO 

h» 

CO 

"5 

lO 

lO 

CO 

05 

s 

O 

O 

o 

O 

o 

'-' 

o 

o 

>0    00 

>o 

Tt< 

O) 

lO 

CO 

CO 

c^^ 

-V 

CO 

1< 

O   <N 

^ 

i-H 

,_, 

a© 

05    1(5 

m 

CO 

(N 

o 

(M 

00 

IN 

in 

o 

Til 

CO 

■* 

IN 

•« 

lO 

U5 

(N 

g° 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

'^ 

o 

O 

o  o> 

on 

r^ 

o 
q 

•* 

O 

00 

■<»l 

^ 

>o 

^ 

o 

■"I 

<N 

q 

t^ 

CO 

00 

■<t 

° 

'O  05  lO  i-c  IN  05  IN 

i-i  (N  O  00  CO  Ol  00 

"-^  CO  t-  t^__  CO  IN  05 

"-I  00  r-T  lO  CD  IN  oT 

IN  CO  CO  00  ^  CO  >-( 

N  ■*  rH  O  »H  i-H  rt 


C^  IN  —1  (35  O 

(N  CO  t^  IN  05 

(N  -^_  q  CD  >o_ 

CO  O"  Co"  05  05 

.-H  -^  IN  CO  00 

■-I  CO  cq  CO 


00  lO  t- 

lO  00  00 

q  w  q 

(N  CO  CD 

00  05  ^ 

•*  IN  X5 


CO  C5  O  o3  •*  lO  K5 

■*  lO  Tti  O  O  t»  CO 

■<i^  (>._  O  ~  t-  CO  00 

"*  IN  O  2  ccf  CO  •* 

>0  O  O  S  >0  CO  05 

IN  IN  IN  q  O  CO  CO 

0=  r-T 


OS 


«5t-llO.-HOt>.0       P  05O 

W'-iOOOt)<0       O  COO 

lOi-Ht^lNOiNO       O  t-O 

00  CO   o 

to^MiOM^'O       IN  05-* 


CO  05  05  t^  05  05  05 
•1  -I  -H  ^  O  ^  O 
G5  G5  05  C5  C5  C5  C5 


05    CO    O    Ml 
05    C5    C5    C5 


3: 
o 

cu  -    a 


.2    -2 


O    O     .2 


^■^- 


«  «       O  O       Q     O 


<a 

Ml 

e 

•q 

09 

at 

ti 

a 
o 

a 

>. 

u 

So 

EC    en 


2  g 

2-0 

a 

S  3 

^a 


S  o 


K  « 


O   oj 


.2   3  3 

i  S  -^ 

.2  .'" 

Jag 

■^  03 

•^   TS  3 

6     ^  S? 

£  3  ^ 

_      4)  03 

O     t-  j3 

1  -  s 

03    jj  g 


^  ^  o, 

—  a 


S  ""  "5  ^ 

■^        CO    0) 


o  O  1-1    o 


o  ■5 
O.   a> 

c  .t: 
"£  -a  -f 

•2'>  ® 

-o    O  ■£ 

'  g  a  o 

OJ     O     "5 


S   S.2 


^  J.  ■§  ■=  o  = 


S  H 


.S      CO 

o    oj 
"  J3 


a  o  T3 
o 

ho" 


E      ii 


S       tf 


.5  >. 


OJ     "^    o    <i^ 

"^      "      Q      ^    ' 


>»     CO  ■- 

^  ^  s 

«    —  ID 

§  "S  2  3 

u  «  a 

-C     O     (D  g     „ 

HOC  8  .2 


T3  >,    m  T3 

tC  »  ^  cc 

^  >,    2  >- 

O  XI  o 

^  -a  "a  g 


4)     C    ^ 


O  *;    OJ  05    Q> 

?.  i  1  ,t- 1- 


bc   ^ 


£   g  2 


—  4>  S  ^ 

X    o    m    « 

H  o  <;  H 


•s  8 


f  n  «3 

M  J3     m    O     M) 
03  —   -S   ^     5 


230     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


O 

6 


o 
O 


03     g 


°  "2 


00       ■       • 

CO       ■       ■ 

(Mt^rtOO 0000-- 

0-H005 T-iC<5       ■      • 

od^o    •    •    •    •    •     •    -do     •     • 

•       •       ■      -OoSSlNC^OO      -COOOO 

■  oin'oiocooor-     -ooT-iiri 

■       •      •       ■COiOOOtOt>tO      -CONIN 


O)  N  OS  o 
CO  C-)  O  —I 

d  d  d  d 


00  IC  CO  IM 

O  i-H  00  Oi 

d  d  o  d 


M    t»    O    (M    <M 

CO  CO  o  i>  t>. 

t^  O  -H  o  O  t>.  O 
O    03    CO    O    O    •*    00 

O    IM    00    00    OO 
■-H    05    O   t»    C<3 

oi_  '^  "-^  CO  r-^ 

(N    t*    lO   iC  CO 

Tt<    00           ■*   113 

^  00  OO  [^  O  ■*  (N 
CO  O  O  OO  05  --H  rt 
00  CD  t^^  i-<_  CO  l^  O 
i-r  -^■'  (m"  00  lO  lO  CO 
•O                   (M    CO    r-l    i-< 

■*  CD  03  ■*  "5 

O  00  t^  — I  (N 

00  oT  oT  CO  t>r 

lO  CD  IM  •<1'  O 


i>  d 


CO  c^__  o 
■*  Oi  >o 
CO  CO  t^ 


00  o^  Oi 
00  o> 

lO  CO 


(MCOOOOOOOTjf  O 

rot^ooooooi-i  o 

C0050000MCDOt>  O 

<NN-*t^t^r^ooooo  o 

(M          lOiOiOiOiOiOlM  »-i 


00  O  00  >c 

l^    O    ■*    05 

CO  o  00  "O 


I      CO    J> 

03    i-l    "-I 

a  y-*  Ci  Ci 


_c 

o 

"o 

o3 

>■ 

^ 

c 

c 

c 

- 

•  ^ 


^    ^ 


.°  a 


:SS 


1^ 


■go 


•9  f^ 


■  ^     03 


a  0^  B  c  3  s  -^ 

o3   -G     ^     O     O     O    ^ 

Cm  H  2  O  O  O   ° 


APPENDIX  TO  CHAPTER  V 


STANDARD   FORMS   FOR  STATISTICS   OF   MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

(The  forms  herewith  reproduced  were  presented  at  the  annual  meeting  of  the  American 
Public  Health  Association,  Havana,  Cuba,  December,  1911.) 

Ending 19 

(1)  Name  of  city 

(2)  Population Year 


(3)   Character  of  population 

Distribution  by 

Per  cent  residential       

Property 

Area 

Population 

Per  cent  manufacturing 

Per  cent  foreign 

A.  Statistics  of  Refuse 
(4)  Average  daily  quantity  of  refuse: 


Summer 

Winter 

Average 

Yards 

Tons 

Yards 

Tons 

Yards 

Tons 

Garbage 

Ashes 



Rubbish 

Total  refuse. . . 

231 


232     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 
(5)  Weight  per  cubic  yard: 


Minimum 

Maximum 

Average 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Total  refuse            

(6)  Quantities  of  refuse: 


Pounds  per  capita 
per  year 


Pounds  per  1000  Popula- 
tion per  day 


Garbage . 
Ashes.  .  . 
Rubbish . 


Total  refuse. 


(7)  Mechanical  analyses: 


Glass 

Bones 

Paper 

Rags 

Metals 

Wood 

Dust 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

', 

Total  refuse. 

ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION  233 

(8)  Chemical  analyses: 


Carbon 

Water 

Ash 

Volatile 
Matter 

Grease 

Tankage 

Am- 
monia 

Potash 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

.... 

Total  refuse. . 

B.  Statistics  of  House  Treatment 

(9)  Size  of  house  can 

(10)  Type  of  house  can 

(11)  Number  of  cans 

(12)  Location  of  can 

(13)  Is  can  set  out  for  collector? 

(14)  Number  of  separations 

(15)  Is  the  garbage  drained  or  wrapped  in  paper? 

C.  Statistics  of  Collection 

(16)  Is  collection  done  by  city  or  by  contract? 

(17)  Does  the  city  own  the  stables  and  equipment? 

(18)  Number  of  collections  per  week 


Summer 

Winter 

Business 

Residential 

Outlying 

Business 

Residential 

Outlying 

Garbage 

Ashes     

Total  refuse. .  . 

(19)  Average  length  of  haul:  (Grades) 
Garbage 
Ashes 
Rubbish 


234    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 
(20)  Type  of  collection  wagons  used: 


Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Capacity  (cu.  yds,) 

Material 

No.  of  horses 

Attendants  per  wagon 

How  dumped? 

Covered? 

Maker 

Cost 

(21)  Frequency  of  washing  wagons: 
Method  of  washing  wagons : 

(22)  Equipment  required: 


Summer 

Winter 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

No.  of  wagons. . . 
No.  of  men 

(23)  Cost  of  collection  per  ton:  Garbage         Ashes       Rubbish 

D.  Statistics  op  Disposal 

(24)  Method  of  disposal — Garbage 

Ashes 
Rubbish 

Sanitary  Aspects 

(25)  Disposal  by  dumping: 
Classes  of  refuse  dumped 
Number  of  dumps 

Area  of  available  dumping  grounds 
How  are  dumps  kept  up? 
Cost  of  disposal  per  ton 

(26)  Disposal  by  burial: 
Location 
Character  of  soil 

Area  required  per  ton  per  year  (sq.  ft.) 
Frequency  of  using  soil 
Number  of  men  employed 
Cost  per  ton 


ESTIMATING  THE  COST  OF  COLLECTION  235 

(27)  Disposal  by  feeding  to  pigs: 

Is  the  disposal  by  the  city  or  by  contract? 
Annual  pay?nent  to  contractor 
Location  of  piggery 
Number  of  pigs  kept — Summer 

Winter 
Number  of  pigs  lost  per  year 
Are  the  pigs  vaccinated? 

Is  the  garbage  sterilized  before  feeding  to  pigs? 
Number  of  men  employed  at  the  piggery 
Gross  cost  of  operation  per  ton  of  garbage 
Revenue  per  ton  of  garbage 

(28)  Disposal  by  reduction: 
Location  of  reduction  plant 
Tjrpe  of  plant 

Quantity  of  garbage  reduced  per  year,  tons 
Number  of  men  employed  at  the  plant — Summer 

Winter 
Cost  of  plant 

Gross  cost  of  operation  per  ton 
Quantity  and  value  of  by-products 
Revenue  per  ton 

(29)  Disposal  by  incineration  (including  rubbish  sorting) 

Capacity  of  each  plant Number  of  plants 

Classes  of  refuse  burned 

Location  of  plant 

Type  of  plant 

Coal  used  per  ton  of  material  burned 

Total  number  of  men  employed  at  the  plant — Summer 

Winter 
Gross  cost  per  ton 
Revenue  per  ton 
Cost  of  plant 
Value  of  power  developed 
Clinker  utilization 

E.  Miscellaneous  Statistics 

(30)  Under  what  city  department  is  the  work  done? 

(31)  How  is  manure  kept  at  stables? 

How  is  manure  removed? How  disposed? 

(32)  Are  there  loading  stations  in  the  city? 

If  so,  how  many  and  for  what  classes  of  refuse? 


CHAPTER  VI 
OUTLINE  OF  METHODS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 

The  term  "  refuse  disposal  "  includes  the  final  disposition,  utiliza- 
tion, or  destruction  of  the  refuse  materials  after  their  collection  and 
delivery.  Several  methods  are  in  common  use  in  different  countries, 
and  even  in  the  same  country  under  different  conditions.  To  be 
satisfactory  to  a  community,  the  disposal  must  answer  two  require- 
ments: It  must  be  sanitary,  i.e.,  it  must  not  cause  a  nuisance  or  danger 
to  health;  and  it  must  be  economical,  i.e.,  the  expense  must  be  the 
lowest  that  will  effect  a  sanitary  final  disposal  of  all  the  refuse  materials. 

The  demand  for  a  satisfactory  final  disposal  may  be  progressive, 
for,  it  generally  becomes  more  and  more  important  and  urgent  with 
the  growth  of  a  community.  In  very  small  towns,  simple  methods 
suffice  for  a  number  of  years.  In  large  communities,  more  complex 
and  costly  works  are  necessary.  In  many  cases,  also,  the  relative 
importance  of  the  collection  and  disposal  is  essential.  It  is  obviously 
unwise  to  provide  costly  and  comprehensive  disposal  works  before  a 
general  and  efficient  collection  service  has  first  been  developed  and 
adopted. 

There  are  no  marked  instances  of  disease  caused  or  spread  by  inad- 
equate or  improper  refuse  disposal.  The  disposal  works,  however, 
may,  and  frequently  do,  have  a  secondary  effect  on  public  health, 
produced  through  flies,  mosquitoes,  rats,  and  probably  still  other 
causes.  These  facts  may  be  verified  by  a  visit  to  any  city  which  has 
no  proper  method  of  refuse  collection  or  disposal,  particularly  a  city 
in  a  warm  climate;  for  the  modern  standard  of  public  health  and 
comfort  cannot  be  maintained  without  proper  attention  to  them. 

One  purpose  of  refuse  disposal  works  is  to  provide  a  definite  place 
to  which  all  the  waste  materials  can  be  brought,  and  thereby  prevent  a 
promiscuous  dumping  on  or  near  places  where  it  might  become  objec- 
tionable. At  such  works  the  materials  must  be  treated  so  as  to  con- 
trol the  organic  decomposition,  to  prevent  objectionable  odors,  to 
recover  any  valuable  parts,  perhaps,  also,  to  be  used  in  producing 
steam,  and  to  reduce  the  final  residue  to  the  smallest  quantity  and 
the  least  offensive  condition. 

236 


OUTLINE  OF  METHODS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL  237 

Several  methods  are  available  for  such  disposal,  their  preference 
depending  on  local  conditions  and  the  character  of  the  materials. 
Most  of  them  have  been  tried  and  developed  to  a  satisfactory  degree 
of  efficiency  and  economy.  They  are  mentioned  below,  and  the 
best  of  them  will  be  described  in  detail  in  subsequent  chapters. 

A.— NATURAL  METHODS 

1.  Dumping  into  Large  Bodies  of  Water.^ — Such  dumping  has  been 
practiced  by  cities  situated  near  oceans,  lakes,  or  large  rivers.  The 
refuse  materials  are  transported  on  scows  to  a  considerable  distance 
from  the  shore  and  there  dumped;  or,  they  are  discharged  into  a 
flowing  stream  below  places  of  habitation.  The  method  has  heretofore 
seldom  been  permanently  satisfactory,  because  of  the  nuisance  result- 
ing from  floating  refuse  frequently  stranding  on  the  shores. 

2.  Dumping  on  Land. — This  method  is  followed  more  than  any 
other.  Dumping  garbage,  especially  in  large  quantities,  without  mixing 
with  other  materials,  however,  creates  offensive  conditions.  Putre- 
faction and  fly  breeding  may  soon  produce  quite  serious  nuisances. 
When  the  garbage  is  mixed  with  a  sufficient  quantity  of  ashes,  rubbish, 
or  street  sweepings,  the  dumping  is  less  objectionable,  depending  on 
the  quantity  and  character  of  such  added  materials  and  on  the  climate. 
Ashes  and  rubbish  without  garbage  may  sometimes  be  dumped  with 
no  offensive  results.  A  proper  mixing  of  the  materials,  a  covering 
with  a  thin  layer  of  excavated  soil,  and  proper  control  of  the  dumps, 
are  necessary  in  order  to  prevent  fly  breeding,  putrefaction,  and  fires 
on  the  dumps.  Such  dumps,  to  be  satisfactory,  must,  nevertheless,  be 
sufficiently  far  from  habitations,  and  must  be  given  proper  attention. 

3.  Land-fill. — Disposal  of  refuse  by  land-fill,  with  the  addition  of 
clean  materials,  such  as  earth,  is  accomplished  by  filling  in  large 
depressions  or  old  excavations.  Garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish,  as  they 
are  being  dumped  in  the  fill,  may,  for  instance,  be  mixed  with  street 
sweepings,  or  earth  taken  from  near-by  building  excavations  or  borrow- 
pits.  When  a  sufficient  quantity  of  such  fairly  clean  material  is 
mixed  with  the  refuse,  unobjectionable  oxidation  of  the  organic  matter 
may  take  the  place  of  putrefaction. 

4.  Plowing  into  Soil. — This  method  is  similar  in  principle  to  land- 
fill. It  is  used  in  some  European  cities,  in  very  sandy  soils,  even  for 
the  disposal  of  mixed  refuse.  The  refuse  is  first  spread  over  the 
ground  and  then  within  a  day  or  two  turned  into  the  soil  with  a 
plow. 

5.  Burial. — A  disposal  by  shallow  burial  is  more  applicable  to 
garbage  than  to  other  refuse  materials,  and  is  generally  more  avail- 


238     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

able  for  small  towns  than  for  large  cities.  Nevertheless,  it  is  used 
successfully  for  a  very  large  population  in  Berlin,  Germany,  where 
the  soil  is  almost  entirely  sand. 

6.  Feeding  to  Hogs. — The  food  value  of  fresh  garbage  is  sufficiently 
great  to  have  made  feeding  to  hogs  an  old  and  very  common  method  of 
final  disposal.  Hotels  and  eating  houses  generally  have  private  collec- 
tions for  this  purpose,  and  realize  a  profit  therefrom.  In  nearly  all 
cities  some  of  the  garbage  is  disposed  of  in  this  way.  In  late  years 
the  use  of  this  method  has  been  greatly  extended,  and  it  promises 
further  satisfactory  development  along  both  sanitary  and  economical 
lines. 

B.— ARTIFICIAL  METHODS 

1.  Sorting. — Sorting  consists  of  separating,  generally  by  hand,  the 
marketable  from  the  worthless  portions  of  the  refuse.  It  is  applicable 
chiefly  to  ashes  and  general  rubbish,  and  in  cities  where  the  popula- 
tion is  wasteful.     The  net  profit  to  cities  is  usually  quite  small. 

2.  Incineration. — This  method,  as  its  name  implies,  is  the  burning 
of  all  combustible  waste  materials  in  specially  designed  furnaces. 
When  garbage  is  collected  by  itself  and  alone  disposed  of  by  incinera- 
tion in  garbage  furnaces,  or  so-called  crematories,  an  additional  fuel, 
as  coal,  gas,  or  oil,  must  be  used.  If  sufficient  fuel  is  added,  such 
materials  may  be  burned  satisfactorily,  from  a  sanitary  standpoint. 
Such  burning  does  not  usually  result  in  producing  very  high  tem- 
peratures, and  therefore  such  a  furnace  is  spoken  of  as  a  "  low-tem- 
perature "  incinerator:  Mixed  refuse,  containing,  besides  garbage, 
also  sufficient  quantities  of  unburnt  coal  in  ashes  and  of  rubbish  or 
litter  may  burn  readily  without  additional  fuel.  Under  forced  draft, 
even  an  intense  heat  can  be  created;  therefore,  such  furnaces  are 
called  "  high-temperature  "  incinerators.  The  utilization  of  the  steam 
and  clinker  produced  by  them  may  yield  a  substantial  revenue  and 
thus  reduce  the  net  cost  of  incineration. 

3.  Reduction. — The  reduction  method  of  disposal  is  applicable 
only  to  garbage  and  dead  animals.  The  process  consists,  briefly,  in 
causing  the  garbage  to  be  separated  into  four  parts:  water,  grease, 
tankage,  and  volatile  matter.  Tankage  is  a  dry  vegetable,  animal, 
and  mineral  material,  which  is  fairly  stable,  mostly  fibrous,  and  has 
some  fertilizing  value. 

The  works  require  the  installation  and  maintenance  of  apparatus 
and  machinery  which  is  more  or  less  complicated.  The  method  has 
been  economical  and  satisfactory  in  some  of  the  large  cities  of  the 
United  States. 


OUTLINE  OF  METHODS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL  239 

4.  Miscellaneous. — Under  this  heading  several  other  processes 
are  mentioned.  As  yet,  none  of  them  has  gained  an  extended  field. 
Only  one  is  described  here  in  detail;  it  will  not  again  be  mentioned. 

Grinding  (broyage)  is  a  method  of  disposal  developed  in  France. 
It  is  more  generally  applicable  to  mixed  refuse,  but  is  also  suitable 
for  Kart)age,  when  this  is  sufficiently  dry.  The  refuse  is  ground 
between  two  rotating  steel-toothed  plates  (patented  by  Schoeller) 
from,  which  it  falls  into  cars  for  removal.  The  ground  material 
is  said  to  lool:  somewhat  like  leaf  mould,  and  is  used  for  fertilizing. 

Grinding  works  were  established  at  Vitry,  a  few  miles  southeast, 
and  at  St.  Ouen,  a  few  miles  northwest  of  Paris.  Before  treatment 
the  larger  materials,  such  as  bones,  glass,  iron,  etc.,  were  picked  out 
and  sold.  The  remaining  material  was  then  ground  and  subse- 
quently sifted.  About  four- fifths  of  this  material  were  comminuted 
and  sold  as  a  fertilizer,  the  other  fifth  was  incinerated.  The  treat- 
ment of  10  tons  required  about  20  h.p.  Each  of  the  grinders  broke 
up  about  25  tons  daily.  The  odor  of  the  final  material,  though  quite 
pronounced  when  it  left  the  works,  disappeared  in  about  three  weeks. 

The  average  composition  of  the  ground-up  refuse,  determined  by 
Vivien,  Guillen,  and  others  from  many  samples,  was: 

Total  nitrogen 9.31  parts  per  1000 

Total  phosphoric  acid 7.12  parts  per  1000 

Total  potash , 5.28  parts  per  1000 

Total  lime 54.90  parts  per  1000 

The  cost  of  preparing  this  fertilizer  has  not  permitted  a  profitable 
sale,  yet  it  has  reduced  the  previous  cost  of  disposal.  It  sells  for  from 
1  to  2  francs  per  ton.  The  hygienic  value  of  the  process  is  low,  as 
there  is  no  destruction  of  the  pathogenic  germs  which  enter  the  refuse 
from  houses  and  streets.  Grinding  has  not  yet  been  tried  successfully 
in  America.  A  recent  modification  in  Europe  is  a  mixing  of  ground 
refuse  with  coal  dust  to  form  briquettes  which  are  sold  as  a  household 
fuel.* 

A  process  for  making  a  poultry  food  from  garbage  has  been  devel- 
oped by  Mr.  Edward  C.  Emery,  of  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 

Garbage,  after  some  careful  preparation,  has  been  fed  also  to 
Belgian  hares. 

Dr.  Morgan,  of  Chicago,  has  developed  a  process  of  reduction  by 
which  alcohol  is  produced  from  garbage,  and  Dr.  Horst,  of  the  same 
city,  has  endeavored  to  convert  the  cellulose  of  garbage  into  dextrin 
or  dextrose.  Neither  of  these  processes  has  as  yet  progressed  beyond 
the  experimental  stage. 

*  In  America  the  Nu-Fuel  Company  has  recently  been  formed,  having  the  same  object. 


CHAPTER  VII 
DEPOSITING  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND 

There  are  several  methods  of  refuse  disposal  by  which  the  natural 
agencies  offered  by  large  bodies  of  water  or  the  soil  are  utilized. 
These  agencies  comprise  chiefly  the  bacteria  of  the  water  and  soil, 
the  larger  forms  of  vegetable  and  animal  life,  and  the  physical  action 
of  rain,  frost,  sunlight,  and  other  factors. 

These  methods  comprise  the  earliest  in  use,  and  are  still  frequently 
practiced  by  large  and  small  communities.  Mr.  W.  H.  Maxwell  * 
(referring  to  Lucian's  "  Ancient  Rome  in  the  Light  of  Recent  Dis- 
coveries ")  describes  a  pillar,  found  among  the  ruins  of  ancient  Rome, 
bearing  the  inscription,  "  Take  your  refuse  farther  on  or  you  will  be 
fined."  Even  in  those  early  daj^s  unrestricted  dumping  of  refuse 
was  apparently  considered  objectionable. 

When  depositing  methods  are  properly  conducted  and  restricted, 
they  still  offer,  for  many  local  conditions,  a  disposal  which  is  both 
sanitary  and  economical.  Along  the  Atlantic  and  Pacific  Coasts, 
some  cities  dump  garbage  and  mixed  refuse  at  sea,  and  several  have 
continued  this  practice,  even  after  the  introduction  of  modern  high- 
temperature  refuse  incinerators,  whenever  sea  dumping  was  found 
cheaper  as  well  as  temporarily  unobjectionable. 

Two  general  considerations  should  here  be  kept  in  mind:  First, 
it  should  be  realized  that  certain  characteristics  of  the  various  rejected 
materials  hold  important  relations  to  the  success  of  each  of  the  above- 
mentioned  methods  of  disposal.  Secondly,  these  methods  themselves 
should  be  considered  in  the  light  of  their  "  relative  values  "  in  munici- 
pal sanitation. 

Some  small  communities  cannot  afford  to  do  more  than  provide 
the  barest  sanitary  essentials.  They  may  be  obliged  to  be  satisfied 
with  establishing  a  good  collection  service,  and  to  dispose  of  the  refuse 
temporarily  and  cheaply  in  the  least  objectionable  manner.  Large — 
and  especially  wealthy — communities  have  greater  facilities  for 
establishing  better  but  more  expensive  methods.     Local  conditions 

•  "Destruction  and  Disposal  of  Town  Refuse." 

240 


DEPOSITING  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND  241 

should  and  will,  therefore,  control  the  selection  of  the  more  suitable 
disposal. 

A.— DUMPING  INTO  LARGE  BODIES  OF  WATER 

Dumping  into  large  bodies  of  water  has  been  practiced  to  a  con- 
siderable extent  in  the  past,  but  its  use  is  now  becoming  more  and 
more  restricted.  It  is  a  method  available  chiefly  in  communities 
along  the  seacoast,  the  Mississippi  River,  and  the  Great  Lakes. 
It  is  available  for  all  kinds  of  refuse.  Due  to  the  fact  that  the  lighter 
particles  of  garbage  and  rubbish  drift  to  and  are  stranded  on  the  shores, 
this  dumping  has  sometimes  become  quite  objectionable.  Along  the 
Mississippi  River,  and  near  ocean  bathing  resorts,  it  has  in  some 
instances  been  prohibited  because  of  the  undesirable  results. 

In  a  report  on  the  garbage  disposal  for  Milwaukee  (1907),  Hering 
records  that  in  1890  the  garbage  of  the  city  was  dumped  from  large 
scows  into  Lake  Michigan.  This  disposal  caused  a  public  protest, 
because  particles  of  the  garbage  were  discovered  in  the  drinking  water 
obtained  from  the  Lake. 

The  report  by  Parsons,  Hering,  and  Whinery,  on  Waste  Disposal 
in  New  York,  makes  the  following  recommendation  on  dumping  at  sea: 

"  All  the  refuse  collections  could  be  dumped  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean,  but 
unfortvinately  the  least  harmful  material  sinks  and  the  foulest  floats,  so  that 
much  of  the  floatable  mass  wiU  be  scattered  along  the  beaches,  through  the 
action  of  current  and  wind.  This  fouling  of  the  beaches  creates  a  nuisance 
that  the  public  should  not  be  asked  to  tolerate.  The  cost  of  sending  the  scows 
so  far  to  sea  that  there  would  be  no  danger  of  fouling  the  beaches,  and  the 
delays  and  interruptions  caused  by  storms  and  ice,  forbid  the  use  of  this  plan. 
The  dumping  of  refuse  at  sea  should  not  be  resorted  to  except  in  cases  of 
emergency,  when  the  period  of  such  sea  dumping  will  be  of  short  duration." 

This  method  of  disposal  has  been  used  for  New  York,  Boston, 
Chicago,  Cleveland,  Milwaukee,  St.  Louis  and  New  Orleans.  Fig.  59 
shows  a  scow  being  unloaded  by  hand  in  the  ocean  off  Sandy  Hook. 
In  Europe  the  cities  of  Liverpool,  Marseilles,  and  Nice  have  disposed 
of  their  refuse  by  dumping  at  sea.  The  principal  requirements  are  a 
wharf  where  the  refuse  is  delivered  from  the  wagons,  and  proper 
scows  for  taking  it  to  sea.  The  wharf  should  be  of  substantial  con- 
struction, preferably  of  concrete,  with  ample  facilities  for  cleaning, 
and  as  nearly  rat-proof  as  possible.  Fig.  57  (Chapter  IV)  shows  a 
typical  New  York  wharf.     Fig.  60  shows  a  St.  Louis  wharf. 

The  scows  should  be  constructed  so  that  they  can  be  unloaded 
rapidly  and  easily  kept  clean.     Deck-scows   must   be  unloaded   by 


242     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Fig.  59. — Scow-  being  Unloaded  by  Hand  in  the  Ocean,  off  Sandy  Hook, 

New  York. 

(From  "The  Disposal  of  Municipal  Refuse,"  by  H.  de  B.  Parsons). 


Fig.  60. — St.  Louis  Wharf  for  Loading  Garbage  on  Scows. 


DEPOSIT  I  Na  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND 


243 


hand,  but  bottom-dumping  scows,  as  used  by  New  York  City,  are 
preferable.  Table  78  shows  the  cost  of  dumping  mixed  refuse  at  sea 
in  Boston  in  1913. 

Table  78. — Cost  op  Dumping  at  Sea,  Boston,  Mass. 

(From  Annual  Reports  of  Board  of  Public  Works,  1911  and  191.3) 


District 

No. 

Date 

Popu- 
lation 

Character  of  refuse 

Tons  of 
refuse 

Cost  , 

Cost  per 
ton 

10 
10 

1910-11 
1912-13 

Average 

80,000 
86,254 

Mixed  refuse,  prin- 
cipally ashes.  No 
garbage 

Mixed  refuse,  prin- 
cipally ashes.  No 
garbage 

68,606 
61,308 

$21,520.45 
25,060.50 

$0.3137 
0.4088 

$0.3612 

B.— DUMPING  ON  LAND 

Some  kinds  of  refuse  material  will  probably  always  be  disposed  of 
on  "  dumps."  This  method,  therefore,  should  receive  careful  consid- 
eration. Present  dumps,  in  many  places,  are  objectionable,  and 
improvements  in  their  management  are  desirable.  As  often  prac- 
ticed, the  refuse  is  taken  to  waste  land  or  low  land  and  deposited 
over  it  promiscuously.  The  delivery  is  by  wagon,  trolley,  motor 
truck,  or  steam  railway  cars.  Picking  over  such  dumps  is  often  prac- 
ticed, and  sometimes  left  entirely  to  scavengers.  The  presence,  par- 
ticularly, of  rubbish,  generally  having  some  small  value  for  picking 
over,  increases  the  desire  of  some  poor  people  to  scavenge  the  material 
deposited  there. 

The  kind  of  materials  thus  disposed  of  should  control  the  manner 
of  maintaining  such  places.  Street  sweepings  in  America,  building 
excavations,  house  rubbish,  solid  inoffensive  manufacturing  wastes, 
and  ashes,  are  generally,  at  least  in  part,  disposed  of  in  this  way. 
These  materials  can  be  handled  so  that  very  little,  if  any,  nuisance 
is  caused  to  near-by  property.  When  rubbish  is  included,  fires  are 
sometimes  started,  accidentally  or  intentionally,  and  may  burn  for 
months.  The  smoke  and  unconsumed  volatile  organic  matter  gen- 
erally create  disagreeable  odors.  When  garbage  is  present,  the 
nuisance  from  the  smoke  and  vapors  is  still  more  pronounced,  and 
besides,  when  exposed  for  several  days,  it  putrefies  and  may  give  off 


244    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

very  offensive  odors.  Flies  and  rats  are  attracted  by  the  garbage  and 
breed  in  it. 

Areas  available  for  dumping  near  the  source  of  the  refuse  should 
be  carefully  considered,  because  the  distance  to  them  affects  the 
cost  of  collection  and  the  selection  of  the  method  of  final  disposal.  If 
such  areas  are  scarce,  they  should  be  reserved  only  for  better  mate- 
rials which  may  be  deposited  there  without  objection,  as  otherwise 
an  unnecessary  addition  to  the  cost  of  hauling  will  result.  If  other 
methods  of  disposal  are  provided  for  both  garbage  and  rubbish,  the 
available  sites  will  last  longer  for  the  better  materials,  and  a  much 
better  appearance  will  be  maintained. 

The  careful  consideration  of  the' proper  upkeep  of. dumps  is  quite 
important,  both  for  sanitary  and  economical  reasons.  If  there  is 
a  sufficient  and  regular  supply  of  ashes,  street  sweepings,  and  exca- 
vated soil,  a  little  additional  garbage  and  rubbish  may  sometimes 
be  disposed  of  satisfactorily  in  this  manner;  but,  in  this  case,  the 
materials  must  be  adequately  mixed  and  properly  spread. 

The  appearance  of  such  dumps  can  usually  be  kept  satisfactory 
by  a  moderate  amount  of  attention.  There  should  be  a  sufficient 
number  of  laborers  to  mix  the  materials,  trim  the  edges  of  the  dump, 
prevent  or  extinguish  fires,  and  stop  undesirable  scavenging.  Where 
possible,  the  completely  filled  portions  should  be  covered  with  soil 
and  seeded.  In  some  exposed  locations,  it  may  be  advisable  to 
enclose  the  used  portion  of  the  dump  with  a  light,  movable,  but 
close,  fence.  This  may  hide  the  unsightly  portions,  prevent  dust  and 
loose  paper  from  blowing  away,  and  more  easily  prevent  undesirable 
scavenging. 

Fig.  61  shows  a  dump  at  Louisville,  Ky.,  with  the  attendant  work- 
ing force,  and  fairly  well-kept  premises. 

The  dumps  at  St.  Louis  (Fig.  62)  have  been  well  kept.  They 
are  used  for  the  disposal  of  ashes,  rubbish,  street  sweepings,  and 
building  excavations.  The  refuse  is  brought  mostly  in  wagons 
which  are  emptied  by  tilting,  although  some  of  it  is  brought  in  private 
vehicles.  The  dumps  are  in  ravines  and  other  low-lying  areas  about 
the  city.  On  the  larger  ones,  three  or  four  men  are  emploj^ed  to 
trim  and  keep  them  in  neat  condition.  These  men  spread  the  mate- 
rial and  cover  the  rubbish,  or  burn  some  of  it  in  piles.  The  results 
are  satisfactory,  and  scavenging  is  practically  abolished. 

Probably  more  refuse  is  disposed  of  by  dumping  than  in  any 
other  way,  and  yet  it  is  uncommon  to  find  any  special  budget  appro- 
priation for  the  proper  municipal  care  of  refuse  disposal  by  this 
method.  As  a  result,  there  are  many  well-founded  complaints  against 
such  places,   though  this  necessary  method  of  refuse  disposal  will 


DEPOSITING  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND 


245 


Fig.  61. — Rubbish  Dump,  Louisville,  Ky. 


Fig.  62.— Park  Dump,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 


246     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

remain  one  of  the  most  economical  and — under  proper  regulations  and 
care — least  objectionable  ways  of  disposing  of  ashes,  street  sweepings, 
and  some  kinds  of  factory  wastes. 

The  materials  that  may  become  offensive  should  be  covered,  and 
scavenging  should  either  be  prohibited  or  put  under  strict  control. 

The  cost  depends  largely  on  the  method  of  discharging  the  load. 
Bottom-dump  or  tip  wagons  are  preferable  to  those  from  which  the 
refuse  must  be  unloaded  by  hand.  At  Chicago  5-yd.  or  6-yd.  wagons 
are  used  in  hauling  ashes  and  rubbish.  They  open  at  the  back,  but 
do  not  tip.  It  takes  about  twenty-five  minutes  between  stop  and 
start  to  unload  such  a  wagon.  Side-dumping  freight  cars  may  be 
used  to  advantage  when  a  movable  track  can  be  laid  along  the  edge 
of  the  dump.  A  portable  hoist  may  be  used  to  lift  removable  wagon 
bodies,  and  then  dump  the  contents.  This  has  been  practiced  at 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

The  cost  of  maintaining  dumps  ranges  from  almost  nothing  up  to 
the  cost  of  burial.  Before  the  War  a  cost  of  10  cents  per  ton  of  refuse 
maintained  a  large  dump  in  reasonably  good  condition.  The  cost  of 
disposal  of  refuse  in  this  way  in  different  parts  of  Boston  is  given  in 
Table  79. 

The  requirements  for  the  upkeep  of  dumps  may  be  concisely  stated 
as  follows: 

a.  The  dump  should  be  filled  so  as  to  hmit  the  length  of  the  dump- 
ing edge  as  much  as  practicable.  The  exposed  edges  are  the  most 
objectionable  parts  because  of  the  difficulty  of  covering  them. 

b.  A  sufficient  quantity  of  ashes,  street  dirt,  building  excavation,  or 
borrowed  earth  should  be  secured  to  cover  and  level  the  dump  prop- 
erly. 

c.  Completed  portions  of  the  dump  should  be  seeded  and  partly 
parked,  as  is  frequently  done  (New  Orleans,  Nuremburg). 

d.  No  scavenging  should  be  allowed  at  the  dump  at  any  time, 
except  by  city  employees. 

e.  Portable  rubbish  burners  should  be  kept  at  the  dump  to  burn 
large,  bulky  portions  of  rubbish  not  suitable  for  filling. 

/.  A  water  pipe  should  be  laid  to  each  dump  to  supply  water  for 
putting  out  fires  and  preventing  dust. 

g.  A  sufficient  supply  of  kerosene,  cresol  solution,  or  other  fly 
germicide  should  be  kept  on  hand,  so  that  fly  maggots  may  be  killed 
before  developing  into  flies.  In  addition,  fly  traps  should  be  kept  at 
the  dumps,  as  done  in  Worcester,  Mass.  (Fig.  63). 

h.  Only  such  garbage  as  cannot  be  readily  kept  separated  from 
other  refuse  should  be  allowed  to  be  dumped. 

i.  The  used  portion  of  each  dump  should  be  enclosed  with  a  light 


DEPOSITINd  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND 


247 


< 

o 
o 

g 

Q 


fa     i 
o 

H 

O 

o 


u 

'S 

C^l 

c 

1- 

0.    - 

'-O 

o 

^ 

X 

■^  c 

to    ° 

o 

■M 

0  ■" 

o 

o 

c 

^ 

O 

ff^ 

Cl 

1 

i-< 

-*^ 

CO 

■* 

<N 

o 

Oi 

m 

o 

00 

t- 

•n" 

CC 

05 

f-H 

1-H 

-t 

CO 

O 

'rt 

lO 

CO 

LO 

CO 

(X 

CO 

< 

o 

S 

^ 

c; 

< 

"o 

"* 

CO 

o 

o 

OT 

C<l 

X 

t- 

X 

S  >E 

00 

CO 

o 

O     01 

^ 

ii: 

o 

H    *" 

iM 

CO 

'^ 

02 

lO 

00 

•<*< 

CO 

-J 

-u     o 

o 

■—I 

c^ 

^ 

o 

o 

o 

o 

c 

o 

O 

€^ 

^ 

^ 

.3^ 

i 

3 

3 

4^ 

c£ 

t^ 

00 

iM 

a> 

§ 

•      IC 

CC 

CO 

PL, 

K 

CJ 

c 

c 

Tl* 

I^ 

O 

O 

"3 

T^ 

iC 

X 

b. 

<N 

^ 

c 

-0 

c3 

o 

Eh 

X 

o 

I! 
Q 

m 

0 

o    <u 

c 

I> 

CR 

X 

ai 

'^ 

t^ 

CC 

-M 

2    3 

IC 

u^ 

t^ 

C   t^ 

o 

O     OJ 

Tf 

^ 

■* 

p. 

H    ^ 

1— 

»c 

tf 

"eS 

03 

3 

y^ 

fcH 

C3 

HI 

< 

«2 

03 

C3 

£ 
o 

0) 

_>. 

>, 

o; 

3 

"^ 
.& 

"3 

'o 

Q 

03 

g 

si 

) 

'S 

CC 

3 

•41 

m    fy 

3            C 

c 

t-l 

S    c 

T3 

TJ 

£ 

^-^ 

3 

ii 

« 

.£ 

o 

o 

c 

o 

■;:  -w 

o 

c 

o 

'S 

5    ^ 

o 

c 

c 

o 

o 

3    ^ 

lO 

c^ 

iC 

LO~ 

a 

a  S 

t^ 

■* 

'^ 

TfH 

o 

o   " 

<< 

p. 

^ 

-^ 

-       ;^ 

o 

-£ 

i>       "E  » 

I 

11 

3 

CO 

03                   cS 

248     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

movable  board  fence,  to  facilitate  control  and  prevent  paper  and  dust 
from  blowing  away. 

j.  The  dump  should  be  in  charge  of  a  uniformed  foreman  with 
authority  to  enforce  the  regulations. 

The  report  of  the  Department  of  Public  Works  of  Milwaukee 
for  1911  states  that  173,327  cu.  yd.  of  ashes  and  rubbish  were  hauled 
to  dumps.  The  cost  of  the  dump  maintenance  was  $2,033.97  for 
labor  and  140.00  for  water.  The  resulting  cost,  therefore,  was  $0,012 
per  cubic  yard. 


Fig.  63. — Fly  Traps  over  Buried  Fish  Scrap,  Worcester  Hog  Farm. 

A  few  data  in  reference  to  the  cost  of  dumping  on  land  at  Mil- 
waukee and  Chicago  are  shown  in  Table  SO. 

In  Detroit,  large  excavations  in  brick  yards  have  been  filled  in 
with  rubbish,  thus  accomplishing  two  desirable  purposes. 

Paris  disposes  of  much  of  its  organic  refuse  on  land,  where  it  is 
spread  out  for  fertilizing  purposes;  it  is  delivered  by  train  or  boat  to 
the  outlying  country. 

Table  81  shows  the  cost  of  upkeep  of  dumps  in  several  American 
cities. 


C— LAND-FILL 

This  method  of  disposal  is  a  development  of  dumping,  but  differs 
from  it,  because  it  includes  a  definite  process  of  mixing  the  organic 
with  a  sufficient  quantity  of  inorganic  materials  to  make  them  odorless. 
Generally,  a  sufficient  quantity  of  earth  is  mixed  with  the  refuse  to 


DEPOSiriNG  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND 


249 


insure  a  thorough  digeistion  of  a  moderate  rjuantity  of  garbage  and 
other  putrescible  materials.  Such  earth  may  be  taken  either  from 
building  excavations  or  from  borrow-pits.  Street  sweepings,  unless 
largely  rubbish  and  street  manure,  may  also  answer  the  same  purpose. 


Table  80. — Cost  of  Dumping  on  Land 
(Data  from  Reports  of  Board  of  Public  Works) 


Year 

Milwaukee,  Wis.                                            (  iik  aco,  111. 

Cubic  yards 
of  ashes 

and  rubbish 

hauled  to 

dumps 

Cost  of  dump 
maintenance 

Cubic  yards 
of  ashes 

and  rubbish 

hauled  to 

dumps 

Cost  of  dump 
maintenance 

Per 
year 

Per 
cubic  yard 

Per 

year 

Per 
cubic  yard 

1911 
1912 

1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 

173,327 
293,646 

319  848 
321,669 

320  373 
333,375 

$2,073.97 

10  557.00 
7,357.25 
6,162.85 

$0,012 

0.033 
0.023 
0.018 

1.514,233 
1,460,616 
1,487  431 
1,499,667 
1,516,087 
1,371,490 

$68  732.05 
75,655.95 

72,928.72 
73  922.89 
64,283.79 
61,828.34 

$0,045 
0.052 
0.049 
0.049 
0.042 
0.045 

Table  81. — ^Cost  of  Upkeep  of  Dumps  in  Several  American  Cities 


City 


Year 


Total 
popu- 
lation 


Cost 


Total 
per  year 


Per 
capita 


Per 

ton 


Notes 


Rochester,  N.  Y.2 

Toronto,  Ont.* 

Savannah,  Ga.'' 

St.  Paul,  Minn." 

Richmond  Borough,  N.  Y. 

Boston,  Mass. 3 

Louisville,  Ky." 

Paterson,  N.  .1.^ 


1914 
1916 


245,077 


$12,858 
5,300 


$0,052 


$0,074 
0.049 
0.67 


1916 
1911 
1912 
1916 
1920 


247,2.32 

90,0001 
262,000 
238,910 
145,000 


4,002 
5,315: 

14,738 
4,240 

$9,622 


0.017 
0.120 
0.056 
0.018 
$0,066 


0.159 
$0,042 


One  dump 


Two  districts 
Three  districts 


1  Assuming  half  the  population  to  be  tributary. 

2  Report  of  Bureau  of  Municipal  Research. 
'  Annual  Reports. 

*  Data  for  Toronto,  Savannah,  St.  Paul,  and  Louisville  obtained  by  letter. 
6  123,381  eu.  yd.  taken  to  dumps. 


250     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Such  a  method  of  garbage  disposal  has  been  used  at  Davenport 
for  a  number  of  years.  The  city  is  reclaiming,  in  this  manner,  an 
area  along  the  Mississippi  River,  by  dumping  over  the  edge  of  the 
river  bank,  which,  at  ordinary  stages,  is  from  8  to  12  ft.  high.  The 
wagons  are  backed  to  the  edge  and  emptied  by  tilting.  Piles  of 
material  for  mixing  and  covering  are  always  kept  in  readiness  along 
the  top  of  the  bank,  and  are  spaced  so  that  there  is  just  enough  room 
between  the  piles  for  the  wagons  to  back  up  to  the  edge.  After  the 
wagon  pulls  out  empty,  two  men,  with  long-handled  shovels,  spread 
the  covering  material  from  the  two  adjacent  piles.  In  a  very  few 
minutes,  therefore,  the  garbage  is  covered  to  a  depth  of  from  6  to  10  in. 
This  depth  has  been  found  sufficient  for  satisfactory  protection. 

At  times  of  high  water  in  the  river,  it  is  necessary  to  protect  the 
edge  of  the  fill  by  placing  "  mattresses  "  over  the  bank.  These  are 
made  of  ordinary  chicken  wire,  and  are  6  ft.  wide  and  15  ft.  long. 
Two  strips  of  wire,  about  10  in.  apart,  with  old  hay  held  between,  are 
laced  together  with  marline.  The  mattresses  are  hung  over  the 
face  of  the  bank  and  weighted  with  rip-rap.  The  wash  of  the  banks 
and  the  silt  of  the  river  very  quickly  seal  the  mats  and  prevent  them 
from  being  washed  away. 

During  the  summer,  about  1200  cu.  yd.  per  month  (20  tons  per 
day),  of  garbage  and  night-soil,  are  disposed  of  in  this  way  at  Daven- 
port. They  are  mixed  with  material  from  cellar  excavations,  ashes, 
s'treet  sweepings,  and  spoil  from  paving  and  sewer  work. 

At  times  it  has  been  necessary  to  purchase  additional  material  for 
mixing.  Under  these  conditions,  about  2  cu.  yd.  of  covering  and  mix- 
ing material  have  been  required  for  each  1.5  cu.  yd.  of  garbage  or 
night-soil.  In  1916  a  concrete  retaining  wall  was  built  in  order  to 
protect  the  dump  from  the  river  wash. 

It  is  stated  that  the  land  made  by  this  fill  is  very  valuable.  The 
filling  is  controlled  by  a  foreman  and  three  laborers.  The  cost  of  this 
force  ranges  from  18.2  to  35.0  cents  per  cubic  yard,  the  average  being 
28.0  cents.  This  represents  the  entire  cost  of  the  garbage  disposal, 
and,  in  1916,  was  equivalent  to  about  14  cents  per  ton. 

At  New  Orleans  this  method  has  been  followed  for  the  disposal  of 
all  kinds  of  refuse  except  garbage.  Small  parks  have  been  constructed 
on  the  filled  land. 

A  similar  method  of  disposal  is  used  at  Essen,  Germany,  where 
there  are  a  number  of  low  areas  which  can  take  a  fill  of  from  20  to  30  ft. 
General  house  refuse  is  dumped  there  and  mixed  with  earth.  In 
warm  weather,  some  lime  is  added;  this  tends  to  prevent  the  breeding 
of  flies  and  also  the  putrefaction  of  the  garbage.  These  fills  are  kept 
in  good  order  by  laborers,  and  some  scavenging  is  permitted. 


DEPOSITING  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND  251 

The  City  of  Nuremburg,  Bavaria,  also  disposes  of  its  refuse  by  this 
method.  Many  acres  of  parks  have  been  made  on  areas  which  were 
formerly  sand  pits  excavated  for  building  purposes.  The  city  officials 
have  demonstrated  that  this  method  is  sanitary  and  does  not  cause 
any  nuisance,  when  properly  conducted;  it  is  also  economical,  if  the 
increased  value  of  the  reclaimed  land  is  con.sidered. 

An  approximation  to  such  a  disposal  is  sometimes  found  by  limiting 
the  quantity  of  garbage  taken  to  the  fill,  or,  better,  keeping  it  out  alto- 
gether. It  rarely  happens,  however,  that  all  the  garbage  can  be 
kept  out,  and  often  too  little  attention  is  given  to  securing  a  suf- 
ficiently safe  mixture.  Frequently,  also,  the  proportion  of  rubbish 
is  too  great,  and  fires  have  been  lighted  to  reduce  its  quantity,  thereby 
causing  disagreeable  odors. 

The  essentials  for  a  successful  practice  of  this  method  of  land  filling 
are  a  sufficient  quantity  of  earth,  and  a  proper  mixing  and  trimming. 
The  earth  furnishes  the  aerobic  bacteria  to  oxidize  the  organic  matter, 
and  adds  stability  to  the  fill.  As  a  precaution,  it  is  well  to  have  on 
hand  at  such  dumps  a  sufficient  quantity  of  liquid  germicide,  such 
as  cresol  solution,  pine  oil  disinfectant,  or  a  solution  of  gas-house 
waste  and  kerosene,  for  use  in  killing  fly  maggots. 

In  Chicago,  in  1913,  owing  to  some  difficulties  with  the  garbage 
reduction  contractor,  it  became  necessary  to  provide  a  temporary 
means  of  disposing  of  the  garbage.  It  was  treated  with  an  acid  and 
then  dumped  and  spread  out  in  alternate  layers  with  ashes  and  rub- 
bish. The  garbage  was  brought  to  the  wharf  in  scows.  In  cold 
weather  it  quite  commonly  froze  in  the  wagon  bodies. 

The  plant  consisted  of  a  wharf,  150  ft.  long,  five  wooden  vats  for 
treating  the  garbage,  a  track  along  the  wharf,  two  5-ton  locomotive 
cranes,  1200  ft.  of  movable  track  for  use  with  side-dumping  cars,  a 
heating  plant,  and  a  storehouse.  Each  vat  had  a  capacity  of  50  tons 
of  garbage,  and  was  covered  and  well  under-drained. 

The  garbage  was  dumped  into  a  vat,  until  within  2  ft.  of  the  top. 
The  vat  was  then  filled  with  water  mixed  with  a  sufficient  quantity 
of  crude  hydrochloric  and  sulphuric  acid,  in  equal  parts,  to  make  a 
1%  solution.  The  charge  was  allowed  to  stand  in  the  vat  over  night, 
and  the  liquor  was  then  drawn  off  through  the  under-drains.  When 
the  garbage  was  fairly  dry,  the  treated  material  was  picked  up  by  the 
cranes,  deposited  in  side-dump  cars,  and  drawn  by  horses  to  the  dump. 
The  garbage  was  carried  in  wheelbarrows  and  spread  over  the  bottom 
of  the  excavation  to  a  depth  of  about  1  ft.  At  the  same  time  the  city 
ash  wagons  delivered  their  material  along  the  edge  of  the  dump.  At 
night  the  ashes  were  distributed  over  the  garbage  to  a  depth  of  from 
18  to  24  in. 


252     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

This  process  was  continued  from  October  1,  1913,  to  June  15, 
1914,  or  for  about  200  working  days,  the  average  quantity  of  garbage 
handled  per  day  being  300  tons.  The  settlement  amounted  to  about 
9  ft.  from  an  original  depth  of  from  25  to  35  ft.  After  one  year,  some 
of  the  material  was  excavated  to  a  depth  of  5  ft.,  and  was  found  to  be 
dry  and  inoffensive.  The  process  v/as  devised  by  Dr.  G.  B.  Young, 
the  Health  Commissioner  of  Chicago,  from  whose  report  the  fore- 
going account  is  taken. 

D.— PLOWING  INTO  THE  SOIL 

The  disposal  of  refuse  materials  by  plowing  into  the  soil  is  a  method 
very  similar  to  burial.  The  refuse  materials  are  spread  over  the 
ground  in  a  thin  layer,  and  are  plowed  in  at  intervals,  by  which  process 
they  are  partly  mixed  and  partly  covered.  This  method  has  been 
used  at  Cologne,  Germany,  where  mixed  house  refuse  is  spread  over 
fields  having  an  area  of  50  acres  or  more,  and  at  intervals  of  one  month 
is  plowed  into  the  soil. 

For  raw  garbage  this  method  is  not  as  suitable  as  burial,  because 
in  warm  weather  it  must  be  covered  very  quickly  in  order  to  prevent 
a  stench. 

The  plowing  method  for  garbage  disposal  was  tried  at  York,  Pa., 
in  1906,  but  too  long  an  interval  was  allowed  between  the  plo wings, 
and  the  objectionable  odors  which  resulted  were  observable  for  several 
thousand  feet. 

With  European  mixed  refuse,  the  offense  from  putrid  garbage  is 
largely  eliminated.  A  greater  trouble  results  from  many  loose  pieces 
of  paper  blowing  about,  which  was  especially  noticeable  on  the  Cologne 
fields.     This  method  does  not  have  a  wide  application. 

At  the  Worcester  hog  farm,  some  garbage  has  been  disposed  of  alter- 
nately by  burial  and  by  plowing  into  the  soil  (Fig.  64).  The  soil  is  a 
sandy  glacial  drift,  well  suited  for  the  burial  process.  Plowing  in 
thin  layers  was  found  to  cause  less  trouble  from  flies  than  dumping 
and  covering  in  pits.  It  was  found  necessary  to  have  laborers  trim 
the  furrows  in  order  to  cover  the  garbage  thoroughly. 

E.— BURLAL 

When  properly  done,  a  shallow  burial  in  the  soil  constitutes  a 
fully  sanitary  and  adequate  method  of  disposal,  and  particularly  for 
garbage,  to  which  it  is  generally  confined.  Manure  and  night-soil 
can  also  be  well  disposed  of  in  this  way.  In  small  communities  it  is 
generally  best  to  cover  both  of  these  materials  with  6  in.  of  soil. 


DEPOSITING  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND 


253 


There  is  very  little  advantage  in  burying  ashes,  street  sweepings, 
and  the  like.  Rubbish  is  generally  too  bulky  for  burial,  and  its  per- 
ishable parts  are  not  decomposed  so  easily  or  so  quickly  as  to  produce 
any  putrescence. 

The  success  of  this  method  depends  on  an  aerobic  bacterial  decom- 
position in  the  soil.  Therefore,  garbage  must  not  be  buried  so  deep 
that  the  air  cannot  reach  it  freely;  and  the  layer  of  garbage  must  not 
be  deeper  than  that  which  the  soil  bacteria  can  penetrate  and  where 
they  can  still  digest  it.  When  these  two  precautions  are  observed, 
burial  is  simple  and  quite  satisfactory. 


Fig.  64. — Plowing  in  Some  Garbage,  Worcester  Hog  Farm. 


The  time  required  for  the  complete  decomposition  of  the  garbage 
depends  on  the  nature  of  the  soil.  When  it  is  sandy  and  open,  and 
in  temperate  climates,  garbage  can  be  decomposed  thoroughly  at  the 
end  of  two  years.  If  the  soil  is  heavy,  like  clay,  and  the  winters  are 
severe,  it  will  require  about  four  years.  At  the  end  of  these  periods, 
the  soil  can  be  reused  for  assimilating  further  doses.  To  get  good 
results  from  this  method,  it  is  essential  to  have  adequate  drainage. 
The  site  must  not  be  flooded,  and  the  ground-water  must  not  rise  to 
within  12  or  18  in.  of  the  surface.  If  the  garbage  is  deposited  below 
the  ground-water  level,  a  much  slower  bacterial  decomposition  takes 
place. 


254     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  treatment  of  the  burial  field  is  simple.  A  trench  is  dug,  about 
3  ft.  wide  and  10  or  12  in.  deep.  The  garbage  is  dumped  into  it  from 
the  wagon  and  spread  out  in  a  layer  from  6  to  8  in.  deep.  When  an 
adjoining  trench  is  dug  for  the  next  day,  the  excavated  material  is 
used  to  cover  the  garbage,  already  spread,  to  a  depth  of  from  4  to  6  in. 

In  cold  winter  weather,  the  garbage  sometimes  may  be  spread 
on  the  ground  and  covered  with  ashes,  which  are  plentiful  during  that 
season.  The  mixture  is  then  plowed  into  the  soil  in  the  spring.  A 
sufficient  length  of  trench  can  be  plowed  open  to  last  through  the  winter. 
For  an  average  winter,  lasting  four  months,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  open  1500  ft.  of  trench  to  provide  for  one  ton  daily.  The  garbage 
in  the  trenches  may  be  covered  in  the  winter  with  lumps  of  frozen 
earth  picked  from  the  earlier  excavations  and  piled  up  in  ridges 
adjoining  the  trench.  Very  little  decomposition  takes  place  in  winter, 
and  the  covering  can  be  trimmed  and  reinforced  in  early  spring.  There 
need  be  no  fear  of  flies,  either  feeding  or  breeding  at  the  burial  field, 
if  the  garbage  is  covered,  and  the  grounds  are  kept  clean  and  well 
trimmed.  If  small  breeding  centers  for  flies,  rats,  and  mice  develop, 
they  can  be  stamped  out  with  a  suitable  germicide. 

The  equipment  should  include  a  tool-house,  with  a  room  for  the 
keeper,  and  a  stove.  There  should  be  a  place  for  washing  the  wagons, 
and  preferably,  also,  a  wagon  scale.  Building  a  fence  or  planting  a 
hedge  around  the  field  would  serve  to  screen  the  operations,  if  this  is 
desirable. 

In  large  cities  sufficient  area  for  burial  is  not  generally  available 
within  reasonable  hauling  distance.  In  Milwaukee  this  method  of 
garbage  disposal  was  practiced  during  the  winter,  until  a  few  years  ago. 
At  that  time  two  disposal  areas  were  available.  One  had  a  sandy  soil, 
the  other  was  clayey.  The  trenches  were  from  3  to  4  ft.  wide  and 
about  12  in.  deep.  The  depth  of  the  garbage  placed  in  them  was 
about  8  in.  in  summer  and  about  14  in.  in  winter;  it  was  then  covered 
with  the  excavated  material  from  the  next  adjoining  trench.  A  sec- 
tion of  trench  from  10  to  15  ft.  long  sufficed  for  about  one  ton  of  gar- 
bage. In  the  sandy  location,  the  soil  could  be  reused  after  one  year, 
but,  in  the  clay  location,  only  after  four  years.  The  assimilation  of 
the  garbage  was  assisted  by  plowing  every  six  months. 

The  garbage  did  not  act  as  a  very  good  fertilizer.  The  first  summer 
after  the  clay  ground  was  treated,  small  vegetables  could  be  raised. 
The  soil  at  this  time  was  not  good  for  growing  grain;  but,  with  fre- 
quent deep  plowing,  grain  could  be  grown  during  the  second  summer. 
At  Milwaukee,  the  annual  reports  of  the  Commissioner  of  Health 
for  1907  give  the  cost  of  burying  garbage  in  winter  at  from  50  to  60 
cents  per  ton. 


DEPOSITING  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND  255 

Disposal  of  garbage  by  burial  is  commented  on  in  the  special  report 
(1910)  of  the  Ohio  State  Board  of  Health  on  the  collection  and  disposal 
of  city  wastes  in  Ohio  as  follows: 

"  This  method  of  disposal  may  be  considered  as  the  primitive  one  in  this 
State,  as  has  been  the  case  elsewhere.  It  was  found  to  be  in  use  in  but  one  of 
the  cities  studied,  namely,  Columbus,  but  in  a  great  number  of  municipalities 
throughout  the  State  it  is  the  customary  method  of  disposal.  This  is  espe- 
cially true  of  the  smaller  communities.  At  Columbus,  this  method  was  em- 
ployed as  a  temporary  expedient  during  the  time  elapsing  between  the  expira- 
tion of  a  contract  with  a  private  company  and  the  construction  of  a  municipal 
reduction  plant. 

"  To  provide  a  place  for  the  disposal  of  garbage,  the  City  of  Columbus 
purchased  a  farm  of  70  acres  suitably  located  southwest  of  the  city,  and 
employed  it  continuously  from  1906  to  1910  as  a  burial  ground  for  all  garbage, 
night-soil,  and  dead  animals  from  the  city.  The  material  was  placed  in  pits 
dug  to  a  depth  of  about  2  ft.,  with  an  average  width  of  7  ft.,  and  of  indefinite 
length,  and  covered  with  a  layer  of  from  1  to  2  ft.  of  loose  soil.  Approxi- 
mately 15  acres  of  land  were  used  in  this  way  each  year. 

"  Disposal  by  burying,  when  properly  conducted  and  when  the  point  of 
disposal  is  suitably  located,  gives  no  cause  for  objections  from  a  sanitary  view- 
point. At  Columbus  the  method  was  entirely  without  objection,  as  the  burial 
ground  was  at  a  distance  of  at  least  1000  ft.  from  any  dwelling,  and  extreme 
care  was  taken  to  avoid  the  production  of  odors  by  prompt  covering  of  the 
material  after  dumping.  The  principal  objection  that  has  been  raised  to  this 
method  of  disposal,  especially  in  large  cities,  such  as  Columbus,  has  been  the 
extremely  long  haul  which  is  required  in  conveying  the  garbage  to  the  burial 
ground.  In  small  communities  where  this  is  not  objectionable,  the  method 
of  disposal  is  entirely  satisfactory. 

"  After  burying,  the  garbage  slowly  undergoes  decomposition,  and  finally 
occupies  a  layer  one-fifth  to  one-third  of  its  original  thickness.  In  the  spring 
of  1909,  several  holes  were  dug  to  uncover  garbage,  which  had  been  buried 
for  different  periods,  with  a  view  to  discovering  to  what  extent  decomposition 
had  been  completed.    The  following  was  the  result  of  the  observations. 

"  Time  buried  Condition. 

6  to  9  months In  very  high  state  of  putrefaction.     Objectionable  odor. 

Constituents  readily  distinguishable. 

17  months In  a  somewhat  less  state  of  putrefaction;    still  readily 

distinguishable. 

20  months StUl  decomposing  and  of  some  foul  odor.     Character 

more  or  less  distinguishable. 

30  months Material   innocuous,    resembling   humus    matter,    and 

having  a  slight  musty  odor,  very  faintly  distin- 
guishable. 

"  It  will  be  seen  from  these  observations  that  the  garbage  was  not  ren- 
dered entirely  stable  until  two  and  one-half  years  after  its  burial,  but,  at  this 


256     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

time  it  was  found  to  be  in  such  condition  that  the  land  was  again  ready  to  be 
used  for  burial." 

The  mixed  refuse  of  several  million  people  is  disposed  of  by  burial 
at  Berlin,  Germany,  on  a  large  scale.  The  soil  is  almost  entirely 
sand,  and  is  converted  into  very  productive  land.  So  long  as  suf- 
ficient land  is  available  at  an  economic  distance,  no  other  method  of 
disposal  will  be  used. 

At  Champaign,  111.  (1916),  garbage  has  been  disposed  of  success- 
fully by  burial  for  the  last  twelve  years.  A  burial  field  of  3  acres 
(Fig.  65),  about  a  mile  out  of  the  city,  is  rented  for  1100  a  year.    One 


^              ^""^ 

is. 

1 

^— - 

'•"■ "  ,'v 

i 

■4 

|^H^>f 

'j 

^ 

»- 

J 
J 

Fig.  65. — ^Burying  Garbage,  Champaign,  111. 

man  cares  for  this  field,  to  which  are  brought  about  four  loads  of  gar- 
bage per  day.  It  is  buried  in  trenches  about  4  ft.  deep.  An  excava- 
tion made  in  the  garbage  buried  twelve  years  ago,  showed  it  to  be  still 
decomposing  and  to  have  a  foul  odor,  indicating  burial  at  too  great  a 
depth.  In  Rome,  garbage  buried  about  1000  years  ago,  at  a  depth  of 
from  2.5  to  30  ft.,  when  examined,  near  the  end  of  the  19th  Century, 
had  not  completely  decomposed. 

An  estimate  of  the  cost  of  garbage  burial  for  a  small  community 
of  5000  people,  producing,  in  1912,  4  tons  of  garbage  per  day,  is  as 
follows:  * 

*  From  the  Report  on  the  Collection  and  Disposal  of  Refuse  in  Winnetka  and  Glencoe, 
lU.,  by  Greeley.     1912. 


DEPOSITING  IN  WATER  AND  ON  LAND  257 

First  Cost. 

Land,  10  acres  at  $500 $5000 

Attendant's  house 500 

Washing  platforms 200 

Water  connections 600 

Drainage 300 

Tools  and  hose 100 

Planting 400 

Roadway 400 

$7500 
Contingencies 500 

Total $8000 

Annual  Cost. 

Labor $1200 

Supplies 200 

Repairs 100 

Spring  plowing 50 

$1550 
Interest  on  $8000  at  4|% 360 

Total $1910 

Average  cost  per  ton  of  garbage $1 .  60 

In  his  report  on  garbage  disposal  at  Davenport,  Mr.  John  W. 
Alvord  states  that  the  cost  of  covering  about  22.5  tons  of  garbage  per 
day  was  about  37.5  cents  per  ton.  The  covering  was  soil,  chiefly  sand 
and  some  clay.     It  was  very  satisfactory. 

F.— SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  natural  methods  of  refuse  disposal  described  herein  need,  in 
our  opinion,  more  consideration  than  they  have  received  in  the  past. 
Their  simplicity  and  economy  heretofore  have  tended  toward  neglect- 
ing a  sufficient  study  of  their  efficiency  and  cost;  yet  they  constitute 
an  important  branch  of  city  refuse  disposal  work,  and,  as  some  of 
them  have  an  extensive  application,  they  need  greater  study.  More 
attention  should  be  given,  particularly  to  the  dumps,  so  that  they  may 
be  kept  inoffensive  and  clean,  which  is  seldom  the  custom  at  present. 

Shallow  burial  of  garbage  is  the  best  natural  treatment,  and  should 
be  considered  carefully  when  artificial  methods  cannot  readily  be 
made  sanitary  or  economical. 

Depositing  refuse  in  large  bodies  of  water  should  be  generally 
considered  only  as  a  temporary  expedient,  or  be  used  in  an  emergency, 
unless  the  floating  matter  can  be  prevented  from  reaching  the  shores 
and  it  is  the  least  expensive  method  of  final  disposal. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS 

Garbage  can  be  finally  disposed  of  by  feeding  it  to  hogs.  It  is 
given  to  them  raw  or  is  first  cooked  or  warmed,  and  sometimes  it  is 
enriched  with  a  stock  food.  Feeding  is  practiced  to  a  large  extent  in 
the  United  States.  At  farms  and  isolated  country  houses  it  has  been 
an  old  and  common  custom  to  use  garbage  for  feeding  hogs  and 
chickens,  and  farmers  have  found  it  profitable  to  collect  it  from  near-by 
towns.  In  small  communities  this  method  persists,  and  even  in 
New  York,  Philadelphia,  Boston,  Chicago,  St.  Louis,  and  other  large 
cities,  hotel  garbage  is  disposed  of  extensively  in  this  way. 

Providence,  Fall  River,  Pawtucket,  Worcester,  and  many  other 
cities  in  New  England,  feed  all  their  garbage  to  hogs.  In  1904,  an 
investigation  in  Massachusetts,  by  the  State  Board  of  Health,  revealed 
the  fact  that  61  cities  and  towns  in  that  State  were  disposing  of  gar- 
bage in  this  way.  In  the  Middle  West  this  method  is  used  at  Grand 
Rapids,  St.  Paul,  Omaha,  Denver,  and  elsewhere.  Not  until  1914 
was  it  abandoned  in  Los  Angeles  in  favor  of  reduction. 

Table  82  contains  approximate  data  from  a  number  of  cities  in 
various  parts  of  the  United  States. 

During  1917,  owing  to  war  conditions,  feeding  of  garbage  received 
much  special  attention.  The  United  States  Food  Administration 
commended  its  use  as  a  food-producing  and  waste-conservation 
measure,  and  the  War  Department  adopted  it  at  many  of  the  Army 
Camps  and  Cantonments.  Under  this  stimulus,  much  careful 
study  has  been  directed  to  it,  and  much  useful  information  has  been 
gained. 

Present  practice  (1919)  may  be  grouped  in  several  classes,  some- 
what as  follows: 

(a)  The  garbage  is  collected  by  the  city,  and  is  delivered  at  trans- 
fer stations,  in  or  near  the  city,  to  contractors  who  maintain  and 
operate  hog  farms.     This  is  done  at  Grand  Rapids  and  elsewhere. 

(6)  The  garbage  is  both  collected  and  disposed  of  by  contractors, 
as  at  Denver,  Topeka,  Omaha,  Kansas  City,  and  elsewhere. 

258 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS 


259 


<U    C'    O     u     'Z 

^, 

lO 

o  o 

!0    O       •    "O 

O           o       •       •    >0    CD       ■ 

8 

?■    ^  Z    a  .C 

■b 

c^ 

o  c- 

CI  c:3     •  03 

lO         o      •      •  c<  o      • 

•  -t 

«  2   S.  ft  5 

o 

o 

^  CO     •  ^ 

CO         rt      .      .  o  o      • 

o 

•  o 

ca 

o 

of 
ng 
rms, 
iiare 
per 
g 

!» 

o   -^ 

■  o 

S  -a   o  o;  *-   S. 

-r 

t-    (N 

•    CO 

<^  ^   a£ 

ft  ■" 

2  g  i  s  bj 

« 

lO    U" 

:          1     !  e<i     ■     ■     ■     ■ 

■  o 

>3    ft    O'  «    9 

t^ 

t»  t« 

.     .  t»     .     .     .     . 

•  eo 

o    fl  ^ 

Hog 
manure, 

in 
per  cent- 
age  of 
garbage 

§ 

o  c 

CO    IT 

•     .  in     •     .     . 

.     .  to     ■     ■     ■ 

.    '-'5 

■  O 

■  O 

•    lO 

t^ 

-2        a    ,    a 

-f 

i""°ag^ 

o 

(N    u- 

.     .  o     •     •     • 

Z                ft 

CO 

o 

^    CT 

o      •      • 

.     .  o     ■     •     ■ 
.      .  o      ■     •      • 

•    CO 

o 

N 

t^    C 

lO       •       • 

•  m 

O 

K 

o 

03     «    (N 

■g    a  "< 

<:  S.9 

o 

o  o  o     •     - 

.     .  o     ■     •     • 

■  o 

115 

o  ■- 

o     • 

:       :   :8   :   :   : 

•    iC 

P5 

00 

CO  (^ 

in     ■     • 

•  t~ 

•*  >- 

IN      •      ■ 

.     .  CO     •     •     • 

s 
p 

>. 

o 

o  o  o     ■  o 

1 

•     •  o  o  o  o  o 

o 

•  o 

l-s  g 

o 

■     •  o  o  o  o  o 

o 

o 

O  O.  "O      ;  O 

•     •  o  o  o  o  o 

OTj 

-  t^ 

«      "" 

iC 

O    ■*    (N       .    O 

.       .   CO    CO    iC    (N    i-H 

u 

03            _-           m 

?  -^  S   c   £ 

1^ 

O)   00    O       •       • 

O  O  CO  o      ■  o  o 

in 

-  o 

lO 

o 

00        ■        • 

O    O    t>    T)<       •    CO    CD 

•  -^ 

(M    O    CO    (N        •           >-i 

<      ^       § 

0) 

3tanc 

3ity 

to 

irm, 

miles 

cq 

o 

■*   O   CO   --i   o 

•   t^   O    CO    O    CO    ■* 

^ 

CO  •>*< 

l— 1 

Tjl 

5        "".9 

T3 
1    » 

1  £ 

-a 

03 

2  S  S 

S6§    :s2s^|s|£ 

lg 

K;S 

53 

o 

c3     «     0) 

oj    o   ^^      •aJo31ie3t.a 

-fa    c 

0) 

e 

H  H  rt  H  H 

Hh          -Hp^HtfHH       h 

h 

c   a 

c                     13        c; 

a 

•o 

o    o 

o                      o        o 

o 

03     03     § 

03 

^  > 

c 

s 

S    £ 

m    (O    § 

otS          g§mS"SS§          £ 

% 

c  t;  o 

t.'S            OOtlSt-'So            n 

T3 

fe 

(i< 

fa   |i 

H  HK 

HfS       WffitHfeHfatr 

fc 

H 

erage 
ns  of 
"bage 
day, 
920 

CO 

O    OC 

•     •'  o 

■t^        oocoomioc 

C 

in 

ro 

CD    C^ 

.       .    o 

■■*        ococo>n>-<iM'- 

»— t 

<1  -►^   M  a 

■      •    oi      ■    >> 

^ 

^  o   • 

«   :  ft  •  o 

^03 

o   .   : 

"  Ss  *    ■  « 

3 

o 

.a 

3 

C 

oi 
12 

ft  "O      •  _ 

03  e   u,   3 
a  o  ®  ^ 

2  Ph  Q  02 

1   s 
■3  £ 

o  ^ 
1-3  < 

o  o  S  S  -  r 

Ph  ^  O  O  M  U 

0 

0 

s 

c 

03 

s 

260     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

(c)  The  garbage  is  collected  and  disposed  of  by  the  municipality. 
Frequently  the  hog  farm  is  at  the  city  or  county  poor  farm,  as  at 
Worcester,  and  other  New  England  cities. 

(d)  The  garbage  is  received  by  a  comparatively  large  number  of 
farmers  for  feeding  hogs  on  their  farms.  The  collections  are  generally 
made  by  the  farmers  themselves,  but  in  some  cases  the  city  cleansing 
department  delivers  it  to  them.  In  Evanston,  111.,  and  other  smaller 
cities,  the  garbage  is  collected  by  the  city  and  hauled  to  a  central 
point,  where  farmers  who  want  it  may  take  it  away.  Whatever  is 
left  is  burned  in  an  incinerator  or  buried. 

A.  FUNDAMENTAL  CONSIDERATIONS 

1.  Fresh  and  Clean  Garbage. — The  chief  requirements  in  feeding 
garbage  to  hogs  are,  to  keep  it  as  fresh  as  possible,  so  as  to  preserve 
the  highest  food  value,  and  to  safeguard  and  maintain  the  health  of 
the  hogs.  Both  of  these  requirements  call  for  special  sanitary  care  in 
the  house  treatment,  collection  service,  transportation  system,  and 
the  farm.  As  the  highest  food  value  depends  on  cleanliness  and 
freshness,  so  do  these  in  turn  depend  on  the  source  of  the  garbage,  the 
care  taken  in  the  separation,  the  frequency  of  collection,  etc.  Selected 
hotel  garbage  may  have  a  food  value  ten  times  as  great  as  that  of 
mixed  city  garbage. 

For  feeding  purposes  the  garbage  should  not  contain  any  noticeable 
portions  of  ashes,  rubbish,  glass,  or  other  foreign  matter.  Tin  cans 
are  objectionable  because  they  cut  the  mouths  of  the  hogs.  They 
should  be  removed  preferably  before  the  garbage  is  placed  in  the 
feeding  troughs. 

In  warm  seasons,  particularly,  the  garbage  should  be  delivered 
to  the  hog  farm  promptly.  Some  managers  of  such  farms  consider 
twice  a  week,  except  in  hot  weather,  a  sufficient  frequency  of  collection. 
This  is  the  practice  in  Worcester,  both  in  winter  and  summer.  How- 
ever, a  more  frequent  collection  is  preferable,  and  it  is  desirable  that 
the  garbage  be  fed  to  the  hogs  in  summer  within  fifty  or  sixty  hours 
after  it  is  produced,  depending  on  the  temperature. 

In  large  cities  collection  and  delivery  routes  are  long,  and,  further, 
it  is  difficult  to  exclude  all  foreign  material,  except  at  hotels  and  eating 
houses.  Therefore,  feeding  with  domestic  garbage  from  all  buildings 
in  large  cities  is  apt  to  be  less  sanitary  and  less  profitable,  and  the 
practice,  therefore,  is  quite  limited. 

In  some  instances  garbage  is  sterilized  by  cooking  before  it  is 
given  to  the  hogs.  When  this  is  done,  some  grease  can  be  recovered 
by  skimming  it  from  the  top  of  the  containers.     In  the  Secaucus 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS  261 

district  of  New  Jersey,  where  several  thousand  hogs  are  fed  on  gar- 
bage, chiefly  from  hotels  and  restaurants,  practically  all  of  it  is 
cooked  for  from  six  to  nine  hours  in  large  open  vats.  We  are  informed 
that  this  cooking  appears  to  have  had  no  bad  effect  on  the  hogs. 
The  grease  recovered  is  said  to  be  equal  to  from  3  to  4%  of  the  raw 
garbage.  Experience  with  cooked  city  garbage  at  Denver  and 
Grand  Rapids,  however,  was  not  favorable.  It  is  probable  that  cer- 
tain organic  acids  were  formed,  and  these  seem  to  have  irritated  the 
stomachs  of  the  hogs.  Furthermore,  these  animals  cannot  well  reject 
undesirable  particles  from  the  cooked  garbage.  On  this  account,  and 
because  of  its  cost,  cooking  has  not  everywhere  been  practiced  where 
garbage  is  fed.  Sometimes  in  winter  it  is  simply  warmed  and  softened 
by  a  short  cooking,  especially  for  young  stock.  At  Worcester  it  is 
soaked  in  warm  water. 

2.  Diseases  of  Hogs, — Hogs  are  subject  to  cholera,  pneumonia, 
foot-and-mouth  disease,  and  other  ailments.  The  chances  of  death, 
however,  can  be  greatly  reduced  by  proper  care. 

a.  Cholera. — Hog  cholera  can  be  largely  controlled  by  suitable 
vaccination.  It  is  regarded  as  a  germ  disease,  and  contagious,  although 
its  specific  organism  has  not  yet  been  isolated.  Its  first  appearance  in 
the  United  States  was  in  1833.  The  first  noticeable  symptom  is  loss 
of  appetite,  generally  preceded  by  some  rise  in  blood  temperature. 
A  cough  usually  accompanies  the  disease.  Constipation  often  occurs 
in  the  early  stages,  and  the  stools  are  covered  with  mucus.  In  later 
stages  diarrhoea  appears;  the  eyes  become  festered,  and  red  blotches 
appear  on  the  skin,  especially  in  the  abdominal  region.  The  hog  is 
reluctant  to  leave  its  bed,  and  frequently  burrows  under  the  bedding. 
Death  may  occur  within  twenty-four  hours,  or  the  disease  may  run 
for  about  six  weeks  before  recovery.  A  pink  color  of  the  skin  is 
typical  of  a  death  from  cholera. 

Some  details  concerning  the  medicines  to  combat  hog  cholera  are 
given  in  the  following  abstracts  from  a  letter  to  the  authors  by 
Professor  Frederic  Bonnet,  Jr.,  formerly  of  the  Polytechnic  Institute 
of  Worcester,  Mass.,  and  in  charge  of  the  hog  farm  at  Worcester. 

The  "  virus  "  is  essentially  the  blood  of  a  hog  actively  suffering 
from  hog  cholera.  It  contains  the  active  principle  (micro-organisms 
and  their  metabolic  products)  of  the  disease.  Collecting  this  blood 
must,  of  course,  be  done  in  such  a  way  as  to  protect  it  against  con- 
tamination— by  taking  the  usual  bacteriological  precautions.  It  is 
usual  to  add,  as  a  preservative,  a  fractional  percentage  of  phenol, 
tricresol,  etc.  These  preservatives,  in  the  concentration  used,  have 
practically  no  effect  on  the  virus  itself.  When  a  small  portion  of  such 
blood — or  "  virus  " — is  inoculated  into  a  healthy  unimmunized  hog. 


262     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

the  animal,  in  the  course  of  a  few  days,  shows  all  the  evidences  of  the 
disease;  but,  with  such  small  inoculations,  the  animal  organism  has 
an  opportunity  to  develop  sufficient  antitoxin  to  neutralize  the  virus 
or  poison.  Once  stimulated  by  the  virus  to  produce  antitoxin,  the 
organism  apparently  continues  to  produce  it,  which  gives  it  immunity 
for  the  remainder  of  its  life. 

The  "  serum  "  is  prepared  from  the  blood  of  a  hog  which  has  had 
the  cholera  and  has  completely  recovered.  In  other  words,  a  hog 
having  in  its  blood  sufficient  antitoxin  to  give  it  immunity.  As  in 
the  case  of  "  virus,"  blood  is  drawn,  under  proper  conditions,  and  is 
allowed  either  to  coagulate  or  is  citrated,  i.e.,  treated  with  sodium 
citrate  to  prevent  coagulation.  Larger  yields  are  obtained  by  the 
latter  method.  A  small  quantity  of  the  preservatives — mentioned 
previously — are  added  to  the  serum,  as  was  the  case  with  the 
virus. 

Treating  a  hog  with  serum  alone  will  give  it  only  temporary 
immunity,  and  the  immunizing  effect  of  the  serum  very  soon  disap- 
pears, because  serum  alone  does  not  stimulate  the  organism  to  pro- 
duce antitoxin  itself.  It  is  important,  therefore,  that  a  hog  should 
have  had  the  disease  in  order  that  it  may  be  immune. 

In  the  case  of  hogs  fed  with  municipal  garbage,  one  very  important 
fact  is  often  lost  sight  of,  namely,  that  any  municipal  garbage  may  be 
infected.  This  is  due,  largely,  to  the  fact  that  hogs  are  killed  in  the 
initial  stages  of  the  disease,  and  the  trimmings  get  into  the  garbage. 
Hence,  too  much  stress  cannot  be  laid  on  the  importance  of  proper 
inoculation;  and  by  this  is  meant,  not  only  the  technique  of  actually 
doing  the  work — which  is  simple  enough — but  the  use  of  "  standard- 
ized "  serum  and  virus. 

Some  hog  farmers,  and  even  some  State  agricultural  colleges,  have 
attempted  to  use  "natural  virus,"  i.e.,  that  taken  from  a  hog  pre- 
sumably sick  with  cholera.  In  such  cases  there  was  no  assurance  that 
the  hog  was  not  really  on  the  high  road  to  recovery,  and  its  blood 
contained  very  little,  if  any,  virus.  In  consequence,  the  virus  was 
really  absent,  or  so  dilute  as  to  be  inactive,  and  erroneous  conclusions 
were  drawn. 

The  virus,  after  being  prepared,  should  be  carefully  tested  on 
healthy  animals,  and  the  course  of  the  disease  followed  closely.  The 
same  is  true  of  the  serum.  Unless  this  is  done,  there  will  certainly  be  a 
false  sense  of  security  in  the  remedy. 

In  Massachusetts  no  virus  or  serum  is  allowed  to  be  used  until  it 
is  approved  by  the  State  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  which  main- 
tains a  farm  for  this  very  purpose.  The  serum  and  virus  should 
retain  their  potency  for  a  given  period.     It  is  understood  that  the 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS  263 

larger  manufacturers  of  these  remedies  are  undertaking  to  supply 
material  of  this  character. 

The  most  serious  drawback,  in  recommending  garbage  disposal  by 
feeding,  has  been  the  difficulty  of  obtaining  reliably  tested  and 
standardized  virus  and  serum  in  all  States.  The  success  of  the  feeding 
method  in  Massachusetts  has  been  due,  largely,  to  the  excellent  work 
of  its  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry,  the  head  of  which  is  Dr.  Edward 
Cahill. 

The  virus  of  hog  cholera  and  the  serum  may  be  injected  simul- 
taneously, the  virus  at  one  point  and  the  serum  at  another.  This 
treatment  produces  lasting  immunity.  For  a  short  time,  just  before 
and  after  vaccination,  the  hogs  should  receive  special  food  and  care. 

At  the  Grand  Rapids  farm  the  hogs  are  vaccinated  when  about 
six  weeks  old.  Mr.  Alva  Brown,  the  manager,  describes  the  vaccina- 
tion as  follows: 

"  The  pigs  are  treated  at  the  age  of  from  four  to  ten  weeks  and  while  nurs- 
ing; a  pig  is  held  in  position  by  one  man  and,  by  hypodermic,  virus  is  injci-ted 
in  the  inside  of  the  left  ham,  which  furnishes  the  disease  germ;  serum  is  injected 
into  the  right  ham,  which  furnishes  the  combative  qualities  in  the  pig's  system; 
this  is  known  as  '  the  simultaneous  treatment '  and  is  not  always  practical 
because  of  the  danger  in  handling  the  virus  on  the  part  of  the  operator.  My 
losses  in  pigs  from  this  treatment  in  the  summer  months  will  not  average  above 
5%,  but  in  the  other  months,  which  are  not  so  favorable  to  the  pigs,  the  losses 
are  considerably  greater,  and  the  percentage  depends  on  the  weather  conditions. 
I  treat  pigs  at  this  age  because  of  the  lesser  amount  of  material  required,  as 
this  is  regulated  by  the  avoirdupois  of  the  animal.  Another  reason  is  that  all 
our  stock  must  be  immune,  otherwise  the  animals  are  quite  sure  to  contract 
the  disease  early  in  life.  If  any  animals  are  to  die  through  vaccination  or 
through  disease,  we  want  it  to  happen  while  they  are  young,  and  before  any 
investment  of  consequence  in  their  development  has  been  occasioned.  My 
experience  indicates  that  treatment  by  this  process  makes  the  animal  immune 
during  its  natural  life,  which  does  not  often  exceed  four  or  five  years  and  is 
generally  much  less.  My  pigs  being  from  immune  sire  and  dam  makes  them 
less  susceptible  to  the  disease  if  not  vaccinated,  and  less  liable  to  death  through 
the  vaccinating  process.  It  has  been  estimated  that  pigs  from  stock  where 
immunity  extends  back  several  years  on  both  sides  have  about  40%  of  immu- 
nity, even  though  no  treatment  is  given,  and  I  beUeve  this  is  a  fair  estimate." 

Inoculation  against  cholera  at  the  Worcester  hog  farm  is  described 
by  Professor  Bonnet,  as  follows: 

'  The  entire  stock  is  treated  by  the  so-called  double  treatment  method 
(virus  and  serum).  Pigs  five  to  six  weeks  old  are  inoculated  with  serum  only. 
This  treatment  carries  them  for  about  seven  weeks,  when,  at  the  weight  of 
about  40  to  50  lb.,  they  are  given  the  double  treatment,  virus  and  serum. 
State  Veterinarians  under  the  State  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry  do  this  work 


264     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

free  of  charge,  the  department  merely  paying  for  the  serum  and  virus  used  and 
for  the  necessary  help.  The  cost  of  treatment  depends  upon  the  size  of  the 
animal,  since  more  serum  is  used  the  larger  it  is. 

"  The  serum  costs  If  cents  per  c.c,  and  about  20  c.c.  are  used  for  a  40-  to 
50-lb.  hog,  live  weight,  so  that  the  total  cost  of  treatment,  exclusive  of  help,  is 
therefore  about  70  cents  per  pig.  The  place  for  injection  (between  the  hind 
legs)  is  scrubbed  with  soap  and  water  containing  lysol  or  similar  disinfectant, 
and  swabbed  with  tincture  of  iodine  after  puncture.  Not  one  hog  in  500  is 
lost,  and  there  is  no  trouble  from  ulcer  formation  if  the  inoculation  is  properly 
done.  One  veterinary  with  five  helpers  can  treat  250  pigs  of  40  to  50  lb. 
weight  in  a  day. 

"  To  prevent  itch,  the  hogs  are  ah  sprayed  about  once  in  six  weeks  with  a 
mixture  of  three  parts  of  kerosene  and  one  part  of  turpentine." 

b.  Pneumonia. — Hogs  also  die  from  pneumonia,  contracted  from 
exposure  to  cold.  At  Worcester  78  hogs  out  of  1800  died  from  this 
cause  during  one  month  in  the  winter  of  1906.  In  the  Secaucus  dis- 
trict of  New  Jersey  the  principal  losses  are  from  pneumonia.  The 
preventive  is  proper  housing  and  protection  against  bad  weather. 

c.  Foot-and- Mouth  Disease. — Hogs  also  contract  the  foot-and-mouth 
disease.  At  Providence  and  at  Worcester,  in  March,  1915,  all  the 
hogs  had  to  be  killed  on  account  of  it.  No  remedy  has  yet  been 
found  (1918),  and  Government  inspectors  insist  on  killing  all  animals 
at  a  farm  which  is  thus  infected. 

The  experience  at  Worcester  is  described  by  Professor  Bonnet,  as 
follows : 

"In  February,  1915,  the  herd  of  swine  at  the  Home  Farm  was  visited  by 
the  dreaded  hoof-and-mouth  disease,  which  was  probably  carried  by  crows 
from  an  infected  herd  of  cattle  near-by  to  the  hogs  fed  out  of  doors.  Federal 
and  State  Authorities  took  charge  of  the  quarantine  and  the  kihing  of  some 
2360  animals.  The  Federal  Government  paid  one-half  the  assessed  value  of  the 
infected  animals,  and  the  State  the  other  half.  After  killing,  these  animals 
were  buried  in  pits  with  lime.  Those  not  infected  were  kiUed  for  pork.  The 
farm  was  not  restocked  until  the  following  September.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  that  the  disease  did  not  infect  the  Home  Farm  herd  of  cattle.  Durmg 
this  interval  the  garbage  was  dumped  in  a  hollow  on  the  farm  and  covered  with 
loam.  In  June  swarms  of  flies  developed  from  this  dump,  but,  by  the  use  of 
trap,  a  kerosene-turpentme  spray  (3  to  1),  and  a  creosote  spray,  they  were 
destroyed  and  kept  under  control. 

"After  the  hoof-and-mouth  disease,  great  pains  were  taken  to  rid  the 
premises  of  rats.  Poison,  traps,  shooting,  and  'building  out'  were  all  em- 
ployed. Many  of  the  older  buildings  were  condemned  by  the  Commission 
because  they  harbored  so  many  rats.  These  rodents  not  only  steal  garbage, 
but  may  prove  a  menace  to  the  herd  should  they  become  infected.  The  only 
remedy  for  controUing  them  is  by  persistently  killing  them  in  every  way  pos- 
sible and  building  them  out.     Crows  are  also  a  menace  to  the  herd,  as  Wor- 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS 


265 


cester  has  discovered  to  her  sorrow,  and  their  presence  on  pig  farms  should  be 
discouraged." 

B.  RESULTS  IN  PRACTICE 

As  already  indicated,  many  kinds  and  sizes  of  hog  farms  for  gar- 
bage disposal  are  operated  in  America.  A  few  typical  ones  are 
described  below. 

1.  "Worcester,  Mass. — (Population  about  175,000.)  Since  1872 
some  portions  of  the  city  garbage  have  been  taken  to  the  Home  Farm 
and  fed  to  hogs,  and  the  Superintendent  sent  a  wagon  into  the  city  to 
collect  enough  garbage  to  feed  them.     The  work  has  developed  with 


4  Concrete 

34"  D  &  M' 

Flooring 

2"x  12"joiEt_ 

Wood  Sill-=S 

8"x8"-j  n 

Concrete    ^ 
Piers  /■^^^■^>i^'fe-wy'i!s^/^/-^v/^<^^^ 

i2"x  12";?      I  !  [ 


Ground  Level 


These  Sections  Spaced     12  0  Centers 

Fig.  66. — Typical  Section  through  Hog  House  Proposed  at  Worcester,  Mass. 


the  growth  of  the  city,  and  in  1918,  about  70%  of  the  garbage  of 
Worcester  was  taken  to  the  Home  Farm,  where  there  were  from  2000 
to  3000  hogs.  A  special  so-called  scavenging  department  has  now 
been  organized  to  handle  this  work.  The  garbage  not  collected  by 
this  department  is  taken  by  private  collectors,  and  is  also  largely 
fed  to  hogs. 

The  farm  is  in  the  northeastern  section  of  the  city,  about  3.2  miles 
by  road  from  the  City  Hall.  On  the  left,  the  farm  borders  Lake 
Quinsigamond.  The  country  is  rolling,  partly  wooded,  and  has  the 
gravelly  open  soil  typical  of  the  New  England  glacial  drift.  A  brook 
which  drains  the  farm  empties  into  the  upper  end  of  the  lake.  The 
Home  Farm  proper  covers  376  acres,  but  the  city  leases  also  an  addi- 
tional area  of  220  acres  at  a  rental  of  11500  per  year. 

Fig.  66  shows  a  typical  section  through  the  pig  house  at  Wor- 
cester proposed  in  1916. 


266     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  garbage  is  collected  in  two-horse  wagons,  each  holding  approx- 
imately 2.5  cu.  yd.  Normally,  there  are  21  wagons  in  service,  and  each 
delivers  one  load  a  day.  The  garbage  is  removed  twice  a  week  from 
each  house  in  the  collection  area.  An  unusually  good  separation  is 
maintained  by  the  householders,  and  comparatively  little  foreign 
matter  is  found  in  the  garbage.  Fish  offal  and  rotten  eggs  from 
markets  and  commission  houses  are  collected  separately,  in  special 
cans  with  tight-fitting  covers,  and  are  buried,  as  they  are  not  suitable 
food  for  hogs. 

Until  recently,  most  of  the  hotel,  restaurant,  and  hospital  garbage 
in  Massachusetts  cities  was  collected  privately,  but  now  the  cities  are 
exercising  more  authority  in  the  matter  (Chapter  75  of  the  Revised 
Laws,  Rule  22),  and  are  starting  a  public  collection  of  garbage. 

The  garbage  as  it  comes  to  the  farm  is  neither  washed  nor  steamed. 
Washing  is  not  found  to  be  economical  because  pieces  of  food  are  lost. 
Cooking  or  steaming  was  found  by  experience  to  be  objectionable, 
as  it  made  a  soup  from  which  the  hog  could  not  reject  unsuitable  food. 

In  practice,  the  little  hogs  are  kept  with  their  sow  in  individual 
pens  until  they  are  six  weeks  old,  although  they  begin  to  eat  garbage 
when  about  three  weeks  old.  The  boars  are  castrated  when  about 
five  weeks  old,  and  are  then  left  with  the  mother  another  week. 
Hogs  are  kept  in  pens  until  about  six  months  old,  and  are  fed  from 
troughs.     At  the  end  of  this  time  they  weigh  from  75  to  100  lb. 

After  six  months  the  hogs  (or  shoats)  are  turned  into  out-door  lots, 
about  3  acres  being  required  for  100  hogs.  Here  the  garbage  is  spread 
on  feeding  platforms  made  of  2-in.  plank  in  8-ft.  square  sections. 
These  are  mounted  on  skids,  and  have  half-round  timbers  on  two 
sides  to  prevent  the  garbage  from  being  pushed  off.  Several  sections 
are  placed  end  to  end.  When  the  ground  around  the  pfatforms 
becomes  fouled  with  the  spilled  garbage,  the  platforms  are  skidded  to 
another  location,  and  the  used  ground  is  plowed  over.  The  plat- 
forms are  shovel-cleaned  daily.  The  hog  manure  and  leavings  are 
composted,  and  are  sold  in  quantities  weighing  from  230  to  300  lb. 

Hogs  are  bred  by  turning  about  300  sows  into  the  same  lot  with 
about  30  boars  for  about  five  weeks.  The  first  period  is  from  about 
October  20th  to  December  1st,  which  brings  the  farrowing  during  the 
latter  part  of  January,  through  February,  and  into  early  March. 
After  a  month  or  six  weeks,  a  second  lot  of  hogs  is  bred,  and  so  on. 
During  farrowing,  and  sometmes  during  inoculation,  they  receive  a 
little  grain  and  middlings.  Boars  are  rarely  kept  more  than  two 
years,  and  only  the  best  sows  are  kept  for  repeated  breeding. 

Up  to  1914  there  were  twelve  hog  houses  scattered  about  the  farm. 
Seven  of  these  were  shelter  sheds  for  outside  hogs,  but  they  have  since 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS 


267 


been  abandoned.  At  present  four  hog  houses  and  two  shelter  sheds 
are  in  use.  All  the  houses  are  arranged  for  feeding  in  the  pens.  One 
of  the  houses  is  steam-heated,  and  is  used  largely  for  farrowing 
and  for  treating  the  animals  when  sick.  The  most  recently  constructed 
house  is  of  rat-proof  construction,  including  concrete  foundation  walls, 
extending  several  feet  above  the  ground,  and  having  a  rock-filled 
basement  under  the  floor.  To  provide  additional  pens  for  late  spring 
farrowing,  100  small  portable  take-down  colony  houses  have  been 
buUt. 


tmn- 


^f^i^yi^'^ ' 


S"^*   '    ^"^^^^^^^ 


Fig.  67. — Old  Method  of  Unloading  Garbage  for  Hogs  on  the  Ground,  at 
Worcester,  in  1910. 


There  has  been  an  interesting  development  in  the  feeding  method 
at  this  farm.  Formerly,  the  garbage  was  spread  over  the  ground, 
Fig.  67.  This  was  unsatisfactory  because  a  considerable  portion  was 
trampled  into  the  ground,  where  it  was  lost  as  food,  and  decomposed 
with  a  marked  odor.  Then  the  garbage  was  placed  on  platforms 
set  out  in  the  open,  Fig.  68.  This  was  an  improvement,  although 
some  garbage  was  still  spilled  off  the  platforms  and  fell  on  the  ground. 
In  1918  garbage  was  placed  inside  the  hog  houses  and  on  the  plat- 
forms, and  this  method  gives  full  satisfaction.  The  pens  are  cleaned 
daily,  and  the  cleanings,  consisting  of  hog  manure,  urine,  uneaten 
garbage,  and  soiled  bedding,  are  removed  to  Compost  pits.  If  not 
properly   treated,   this   material   decomposes   rapidly   and   produces 


268     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

unpleasant  odors.  However,  when  properly  composted  in  layers  with 
equal  quantities  of  dry  top  soil,  the  decomposition  may  be  kept  on 
an  aerobic  basis,  without  odors.  Large  concrete  compost  pits  have 
been  built  at  Worcester  for  this  purpose.  About  2.5  cu.  yd.  of  this 
so-called  "  hog  manure  "  are  produced  daily. 

Experience  further  indicates  a  need  for  careful  attention  to  the 
suppression  of  rats  and  flies.  The  proper  measures  include  rat-proof 
construction  of  hog  houses,  proper  disposal  of  hog  manure  and  what- 
ever garbage  is  not  used  for  food,  and  a  liberal  use  of  germicides  wher- 


FiG.  68. — Unloading  Garbage  for  Hogs  on  Platforms,  at  Worcester,  1914. 


ever  fly  maggots  appear.  Burial  areas  and  compost  pits  are  quite 
desirable. 

The  Worcester  hog  farm  has  recently  been  well  operated  under  the 
direction  of  Mr.  Thomas  Horn,  under  the  advice  of  Professor  Bonnet. 
It  is  found  that  one  caretaker  is  needed  to  feed  and  bed  each  250  to 
300  hogs,  and  to  clean  the  pens. 

Cost  data  for  the  Worcester  hog  farm  are  presented  in  Tables  83 
and  84,  the  data  being  largely  taken  from  reports  by  Professor  Bonnet. 
It  should  be  noted  that  the  cost  records  of  the  scavenger  department 
at  Worcester  are  so  interwoven  with  those  of  the  Poor  Farm  proper 
that  a  separate  statement  is  not  easily  secured.  Furthermore,  land 
charges,  rental  of  leased  land,  cost  of  colony  houses,  compost  pits. 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS  269 

roadways,  main  fences,  etc.,  are  not  included.  The  labor  rates  are 
given  at  very  low  figures,  and  appear  on  the  whole  to  be  too  low  for 
application  elsewhere,  irrespective  even  of  the  large  advance  since  the 
beginning  of  the  War. 

Table  83. — Cost  of  a  Hog  Farm,  Based  on  Worce.ster  Conditions, 

Exclusive  of  Land,  as  Estimated  by  Professor  Bonnet  (1917); 
AND  Operating  Expenses  at  Worcester,  Exclusive  of  Fixed  Charges 

Capacity,  20  to  30  tons  per  day 

(a    Investment  Required: 

Four  buildings,  capacity  about  300  pens,  6  by  12  ft., 
including  small  heating  plant  for  one  house,  water 

supply,  drainage,  platforms,  and  fencing $30,000 

Three  horses,  wagons,  and  sleds  for  disposal  work.  . . .        1,500 

Stock     1100  hogs  at  $30 $33,000 

100  sows  at    25 2,500 

SOOshoats         at    12 •.        9,600 

900  small  hogs  at      5 4,500 

30  boars  at    20 600 

Totals,  2930  $50,200  $50,200 


Total  mvestment $81,700 

(6)  Operating  Expenses,  Excluding  Fixed  Charges 
Hog  caretakers,   7 
Manure  men,       2 
Compost  man,     1 

—  10  at  $37  per  month $4,440 

Additional  occasional  help 1,320 

Grain  and  bedding 2,640 

Medicine  (serum,  virus,  and  disinfectants) 3,040 

Superintendent,  farm  foreman,  and  office 2,560 

Light,  heat,  water,  etc 1,000 


$15,000 


In  more  recent  estimates  (July,  1920),  made  for  Toledo,  Ohio,  by 
Greeley,  the  first  cost  of  a  farm  for  5000  hogs,  embracing  the  items 
of  land,  farmhouse,  shelters,  feeding  houses  and  platforms,  barn, 
track,  roadways,  fencing,  teams  and  wagons,  water  supply,  and  sewer- 
age, is  given  at  $150,000;  and  the  annual  cost  for  supervision,  labor, 
feed,  veterinary  service,  supplies,  light,  heat,  water,  new  stock,  loss 


270     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


of  stock,  shipping  and  selling  expenses,  repairs,  and  legal  and  adminis- 
trative matters  at  from  $130,000  to  $175,000,  with  fixed  charges  of 
$18,000. 

Table  84. — Operating  Data  at  Worcester  Hog  Farm 
Including  Cost  of  Collection 


Garbage  Collb 

CTED     Number 

Financial  Summaeies  fob  each  Year 

PER  Day 

of  hogs. 

Year 

November 

30th, 

Loads 

Cubic 

1 

'ons           each 

Total 

Total 

Net 

Net 

yards 

year 

expenditures* 

receipts 

cost 

profit 

1898 

$14,804.34 

$7,674.02 

$7,130.32 

1899 

17,109.00 

10,641.52 

6,467.48 

1900 

19 

52.8 

17,751.21 

11,947.91 

5,767.30 

1901 

19 

52.8 

18,935.86 

13,933.03 

5,002.83 

1902 

19 

52.8 

18,765.03 

18,766.99 

$1.96 

1903 

19 

52.8 

18,140.57 

11,941.55 

6,199.02 

1904 

21 

57.5 

22,326.02 

7,327.00 

14,999.02 

1905 

21 

57.5 

20,515.83 

12,539.20 

7,976.63 

1906 

21 

57.5 

n.o     

23,525.49 

19,321.00 

4,204.49 

1907 

2850 

30,491.93 

24,830.71 

5,661.22 

1908 

34,475.73 

24,321.22 

10,154.51 

1909 

37,737.79 

29,257.25 

8,480.54 

1910 

37,039 .  68 

43,224.25 

4184.57 

1911 

1388 

41,121.74 

25,579.58 

15,542.16 

1912 

2057 

45,750.28 

22,863.27 

22,887.01 

1913 

2167 

53,109.10 

38,376.11 

14,732.99 

1914 

28 . 4           2502 

53,325.62 

38,838.67 

14,486.95 

1915 

21 

52.5 

22.2           1300 

55,718.43 

39,994.36 

15,724.07 

1916 

21 

23.0               t 

57,680.03 

16,692.99 

40,987.04 

1917 

19 

42.0 

21.0           2096 

83,241.19 

44,609.15 

38,602.04 

1918 

20 

54.0 

27.0           2750 

79,413.32 

50,559.60 

28,853.72 

1919 

20 

66.0 

?3.0           3081 

105,272.18 

73,643.17 

31,629.01 

*  Total  expenditures  do  not  include  fixed  charges,  but  do  include  costs  of  collection, 
t  In  1916,  the  hoof-and-mouth  disease  wiped  out  the  herd. 

2.  Stony  "Wold  Sanatoriviin. — At  this  institution,  in  the  Adiron- 
dacks,  the  garbage  is  collected  daily.  It  is  dumped  into  a  caldron, 
brought  to  the  boil,  then  cooled  and  covered  until  fed  to  the  hogs. 
The  length  of  haul  is  about  \  mile.  In  October,  1912  (an  average 
month),  there  were  100  hogs.  Additional  food  is  purchased  from  time 
to  time  to  prepare  the  animals  for  killing,  and  for  nourishing  brood 
sows. 

The  Berkshire  breed  of  hogs  is  raised,  more  or  less  mixed  with  plain 
hogs  purchased  from  local  farmers.  Every  two  or  three  years,  a 
registered  Berkshire  boar  is  purchased,  each  time  from  a  different 
breeder,  in  order  to  keep  the  animals  vigorous,  and  to  avoid  the 
supposed  ill  effects  of  inbreeding.     A  financial  summary  of  four  years' 


FEEDING  (lAUBAdE  TO  HOGS 


271 


operation  is  shown  in  Table  85.  The  data  in  this  table  conio  through 
the  courtesy  of  Mr.  R.  S.  Weston,  who  states  that  "  Careful  post 
mortem  examinations  of  the  swine  have  failed  to  disclose  any  lesions 
due  to  infection,  and  the  experiment  coincides  with  that  of  other 
corporations." 


Table    85. — Cost    of    Operating    the    Hrx;    I-'au.m 
AT  Stony  Wold  Sanatoiuum 


Item 

Yeah 

1909 

1910 

19il 

1912 

Value  of  stock  on  hand,  January 

1st 

Expenses : 

Labor  and  supervision 

Supplies 

Total  debit      

$   497.75 

390.68 
747.97 

$  758.24 

555.11 
1073.81 

$1101.24 

613.44 
1041.10 

$1032.40 

673.11 
1652 . 72 

$1636.40 

758.24 
1703.80 

$2387.16 

1101.24 
2211.04 

$2755.78 

1032.40 
1648.94 

$3358.23 

1390.05 
2310.66 

Stock  on  hand,  December  31st. . 
Receipts  from  sales 

Total  credit 

$2462.04 
$825.64 

$3312.28 
$925.12 

$2681.34 

$74.44 

$3700.71 
$342.48 

Profit    

Loss 

3.  Lansing,  Mich. — At  Lansing  the  experience  has  been  satis- 
factory, and,  considering  the  investment,  profitable.  There  are  more 
than  400  hogs,  valued  at  more  than  $12,000,  and  the  intention  is  to 
double  the  plant.  The  garbage  is  placed  on  the  ground,  or  on  cement 
platforms.  In  the  former  case  the  land  is  subsequently  plowed  and  a 
crop  raised.  The  average  hog  eats  20  lb.  per  day,  and,  under  good 
co.nditions,  gains  from  |  to  1  lb.  per  day.  The  losses  of  animals  are 
not  serious.  It  is  reported  that  some  substances  which  have  found 
their  way  into  the  garbage  with  bad  results  are  the  very  thin  glass  from 
elsctric  light  bulbs,  and  also  phonograph  needles  and  discarded  razor 
blades.     Frozen  garbage  is  unsatisfactory  to  feed,  and  requires  thawing. 

All  hogs  should  be  given  a  serum  vaccination,  and  should  have  a 
weight  of  at  least  100  lb.  before  being  fed  exclusively  with  garbage. 
Some  losses  are  reported  to  be  due  to  poisoning  by  decomposed  food 


272     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

and  carelessness;    some  are  due  to  muddy,  clayey  and  wet  grounds, 
which  may  produce  pneumonia  and  retard  the  growth  of  the  hogs. 

The  following  is  quoted  from  a  bulletin  of  the  U.  S.  Food  Adminis- 
tration entitled  "  Garbage  Utilization,"  issued  in  February,  1918. 

"  The  secret  of  success  with  garbage-fed  hogs  is,  as  with  grain-fed  hogs, 
largely  one  of  management.  The  man  behind  the  hogs  is  the  prime  consider- 
ation. It  requires  hard  work,  no  little  knowledge  of  hogs,  and  a  large  amount 
of  common  sense  to  raise  garbage-fed  hogs.  Cities  undertaking  municipal 
hog-raising  must  remember  that  the  pigs  are  to  be  fed  on  garbage;  not  on 
politics.  The  men  who  are  making  a  success  in  this  work  are  up  early  and 
late,  are  progressive,  know  their  hogs,  and  have  a  distinct  knowledge  of  what 
is  being  done  and  how  it  should  be  done."    - 

The  meat  of  garbage-fed  hogs  is  equal  to  that  of  grain-fed  animals, 
and,  in  fact,  has  brought  the  highest  prices  in  the  Detroit  market. 

4.  Baltimore,  Md. — ^On  May  1,  1919,  a  4^-year  contract  was  let  in 
Baltimore  (estimated  population  720,000),  for  disposing  of  the  gar- 
bage (140  tons  daily)  by  feeding  it  to  hogs  at  a  farm  on  the  shore  of 
Chesapeake  Bay.  The  city  pays  the  cost  of  collecting  the  garbage  and 
towing  it  to  the  farm.  The  price  per  ton  to  be  paid  to  the  city,  after 
delivery  at  the  hog  farm,  a  distance  of  sixteen  miles  by  barges,  is 
three  and  one-half  times  the  top  price  per  pound  of  live  killing  hogs 
at  Chicago,  the  garbage  to  be  drained  before  weighing.  The  city 
will  enforce  a  good  primary  separation  and  the  delivery  of  all  house- 
hold and  hotel  garbage  and  animal  market  refuse. 

The  farm  (Fig.  69)  covers  157  acres,  and  comprises  concrete  feeding 
platforms,  buildings,  and  yards  (May,  1920),  for  5000  hogs.  There 
are  fourteen  yards,  each  100  by  500  ft.,  and  each  contains  a  small 
shelter  house  (34  by  80  ft.)  having  a  capacity  of  from  300  to  350  200-lb. 
hogs,  or  from  500  to  600  100-lb.  hogs.  The  feeding  platform  is  of 
concrete,  and  the  garbage  is  taken  from  the  wharf  in  trains  of  1-yd. 
cars  on  24-in.  gauge  track,  and  unloaded  by  hand.  The  maximum 
quantity  of  garbage  handled  at  the  farm  (up  to  May,  1920)  was  in 
July  and  August,  1919,  and  amounted  to  120  tons  per  day. 

As  the  city  failed  to  deliver  the  garbage  in  a  fresh  condition,  fit  for 
feeding  to  hogs,  the  contractor  has  abandoned  the  contract. 

5.  Newark,  N.  J. — During  1919  a  five-year  contract  was  let  for 
disposing  of  garbage  by  feeding  to  hogs.  The  price  per  ton  to  be  paid 
to  the  city  after  delivery  at  the  hog  farm  is  eight  times  the  top  price 
per  pound  of  live  killing  hogs  at  Chicago.  Newark  has  a  population 
(1920)  of  about  430,000,  and  garbage  (separated  from  other  refuse)  is 
collected  from  about  300,000.  It  is  collected  three  times  a  week 
from  residences  and  daily  from  business  houses,  and  amounts  to  35  or 
40  tons  a  day. 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS 


273 


The  farm  is  in  the  industrial  district  of  the  city,  is  surrounded 
with  chemical,  oil,  and  glue  works,  and  is  near  a  large  city  dump.  It 
covers  8  acres  of  land,  built  up  in  the  marshes  with  refuse,  and  covered 
with  cinders.  The  farm  is  intended  for  intensive  operation  on  a  small 
area,  and  all  the  garbage  is  fed  indoors  (Fig.  70).  There  is  a  scale 
house,  an  office,  four  hog  houses,  and  a  barn  within  a  fenced-in  area. 
Each  hog  house  is  100  ft.  square,  and  has  a  central  concrete  feeding 

Hoc  Manure  Dump 
3i'0" 


Fig.  69. — General  Plan  of  Hog  Farm,  Baltimore,  Md. 


platform  24  ft.  wide.  Wagons  are  driven  directly  upon  this  plat- 
form and  the  garbage  is  spread  on  it.  The  pens  have  wooden  floors, 
laid  on  concrete.  Each  building  is  supplied  with  water  under  pressure, 
and  has  a  sewer.  No  heating  is  necessary.  Each  hog  house  has  a 
capacity  for  900  or  1000  animals.  Experience  indicates  that  the 
feeding  platforms  are  too  small  and  the  pens  too  large. 

The  animals  are  allowed  on  the  platforms  once  a  day.     Garbage 


274     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

is  the  only  food,  except  when  no  deliveries  are  made.  The  work  is 
conducted  by  a  foreman  (who  lives  at  the  farm)  and  four  men.  The 
manure  and  leavings,  amounting  to  about  50%  of  the  garbage  deliv- 
ered, are  cleaned  off  daily,  and  are  dumped  about  the  buildings  and 
composted  with  lime.     The  manure  is  handled  by  two  men  with  a 

jtmo" 


HOG  FARM 

Newark.  N.J. 

GENERAL  PLAN 

A^ 


^1 

o 


■* 


Scale  House 


8  Ft.Wlre  Fence 

-X X X X X ^x- 


Snlng^ 


Door 


SECTION  A-A,  THROUGH  BUILDING 

Fig.  70. — General  Plan  and  Section  of  Hog  Farm,  Newark,  N.  J. 


one-horse  wagon.    Negotiations  are  pending  for  shipping  the  manure 
to  truck  gardeners  as  fertilizer. 

6.  Denver,  Colo. — At  Denver  the  Hog  Ranch  Company  collects 
and  disposes  of  the  garbage  at  no  cost  to  the  City.  Collections  are 
made  daily  in  the  down-town  district  and  twice  or  three  times  a  week 
in  residential  districts,  except  for  a  less  frequent  collection  in  cold 
weather.     The  farrowing  shed  is  a  wooden  structure,  504  ft.  long  and 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS 


276 


30  ft.  wide,  with  8-  by  10-ft.  pens  on  each  side  of  a  10-ft,  roadway. 
The  inside  pens  are  connected  with  open  8  by  16-ft.  feeding  pens. 
Garbage  is  shoveled  directly  from  the  truck  wagons  to  the  outside 
pens,  there  being  driveways  for  this  purpose  on  both  sides  of  the  shed. 
On  the  far  side  of  each  driveway  there  are  50  by  200-ft.  "  fattening  " 
pens,  where  the  garbage  is  placed  on  concrete  platforms.  There  is  a 
fence  on  each  side  of  this  platform,  with  gates  to  control  the  access  of 
the  hogs  to  the  garbage  (Figs.  71  and  72).  Hogs  that  are  being  fat- 
tened will  not  entirely  clean  up  the  garbage.  Lean  pigs  or  recently 
bred  sows  are  then  let  in  on  the  feeding  platforms,  and  every  day  the 
material  finally  left  on  them  is  cleaned  off,  put  in  wagons,  and  taken 


Fig   71. — Denver  Hog  Farm. 


away.  Garbage  is  not  cooked  at  the  Denver  farm.  Cooking  was  tried 
several  years  ago,  because  of  an  agitation  against  the  feeding  of  raw 
garbage,  and  $20,000  was  spent  for  a  plant.  The  hogs  did  well  on  the 
cooked  garbage  for  about  two  months,  and  then  began  to  lose  weight. 
Organic  acids  were  said  to  have  been  formed  by  the  process  which  at 
first  stimulated  the  action  of  the  stomach,  but  finally  irritated  it. 

7.  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.— Garbage  has  been  fed  to  hogs  at  Grand 
Rapids  for  many  years.  The  first  farm  (used  until  1913)  included 
an  area  of  about  100  acres  of  sandy  soil  about  5  miles  from  the  center  of 
the  city.  The  owner  of  the  farm  took  the  garbage  from  the  city  at 
loading  stations  and  transferred  it  in  water-tight  freight  cars  to  the 
farm.  The  transfer  and  disposal  of  garbage  were  at  no  cost  to  the  City. 
A  siding  from  the  railroad  extended  about  1000  ft.,  between  long  open 


276     COLLECTION  AND  DLSPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

feeding  pens  containing  concrete  platforms  (Fig.  73).     There  were  also 
three  farrowing  buildings  to  which  garbage  was  delivered  by  wagon. 

A  new  farm,  43  miles  from  Grand  Rapids,  has  now  been  established, 
to  which  the  garbage  is  delivered  by  freight  cars.  It  covers  an  area  of 
240  acres,  and  at  times  contains  as  many  as  6000  hogs.  Garbage  is 
fed  on  the  ground  and  on  concrete  platforms.  To  handle  the  garbage 
of  135,000  people,  seven  freight  cars  a  week  are  required,  with  an 
increase  to  eight  cars  a  week  in  the  summer.  Garbage  is  collected 
three  times  a  week  during  the  eight  warm  months  of  the  year  and  twice 
a  week  during  cold  weather.    The  free  moisture  is  drained  out  at  the 


Fig.  72. — Feeding  Box,  Denver  Hog  Farm,   Placed  between  Driveway  and 

Pens. 


transfer  stations.  It  is  stated  that  the  unconsumed  garbage  does  not 
amount  to  more  than  10%  by  weight  of  the  total  raw  material.  The 
bones,  picked  out  after  the  feeding,  amount  to  from  500  to  600  lb. 
per  day,  and  are  worth  1  cent  per  pound  (1918). 

8.  Salt  Lake  City,  Utah.— The  garbage  is  collected  by  the  Mountain 
States  Feeding  Company,  and  transported  to  a  feeding  farm,  about 
7  miles  north  of  the  city.  The  farm  comprises  60  acres,  but  only  a 
small  part  of  this  area  is  as  yet  used.  The  main  building,  70  ft.  wide 
and  140  ft.  long,  and  48  colony  houses,  cover  about  6  acres.  Each 
colony  house  accommodates  50  hogs,  and  includes  a  9  by  64-ft.  shelter, 
a  9  by  64-ft.  open  feeding  floor,  and  a  15  by  64-ft.  runway.  The 
hogs  eat  and  sleep  on  board  floors,  and  have  never  been  troubled  with 
rheumatism.     Flowing  wells  supply  fresh  water  which  is  conveyed 


FEEDING  GARBAdE  TO  HOGS 


277 


to  a  stand-pipe,  from  whicli  it  is  piped  to  a  trough  at  each  colony 
house.  Hose  can  be  attached  to  the  water  system,  thus  providing 
fire  protection  for  the  wooden  structures,  and  enabling  the  attend- 
ants to  give  the  animals  a  shower  bath  in  hot  weather. 

At  first  the  company  expected  to  buy  brood  sows  and  raise  pigs, 
but  this  was  soon  found  to  be  a  disadvantage,  and  now  it  purchases 
"  feeders  "  and  "  stockers,"  each  weighing  from  80  to  100  lb.    Each 


Fig.  73  —Old  Hog  Farm,  Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 


hog  eats  froni  15  to  20  lb.  of  garbage  a  day,  and  is  also  fed  about  1  lb. 
cf  corn.  This  is  said  to  give  a  daily  gain  on  each  hog  of  from  '\\  i  : 
If  lb.  Deducting  from  the  haulage  expense  what  the  city  pays  for 
collection,  the  garbage-  costs  the  company  about  5.6  cents  a  day  for 
each  hog. 

Cooked  garbage  was  tried,  but,  after  thirty  or  forty  days,  the  hogs 
did  not  relish  it.  Raw  garbage  is  now  used.  In  winter  it  is  warmed 
by  injecting  steam  into  it. 


278     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Old  hogs  are  double-treated  with  cholera  serum  before  they  enter 
the  company's  pens;  and,  before  being  allowed  full  feed,  they  are 
given  what  is  called  a  "  sweat  period  "  of  eighteen  to  twenty-one  days. 
The  company  has  never  lost  a  hog  treated  in  this  way.  As  many  as 
2500  hogs  are  fed  with  garbage  at  one  time,  and  the  average  number 
in  the  winter  is  1500. 

C.  FOOD  ADMINISTRATION  CONFERENCE 

In  December,  1917,  the  United  States  Food  Administration  called 
a  conference  in  Chicago  of  men  experienced  in  the  disposal  of  garbage 
by  feeding  it  to  hogs,  in  order  to  discuss  the  results  which  had  been 
obtained  in  practice.  Some  of  the  more  important  findings  are  sum- 
marized as  follows: 

1.  "  Quality  of  Pork  Produced. — If  garbage-fed  pork  is  inferior  to  grain- 
fed,  the  price  paid  by  the  packers,  who  are  naturally  averse  to  paying  full 
price  for  an  inferior  article,  should  indicate  the  fact.  We  have  not  been  able 
to  find  any  market  where  garbage-fed  hogs  are  being  generally  sold  at  a 
lower  price  than  grain-fed  animals.  When  cases  of  '  softer  '  pork  have  been 
noted  it  has  generally  been  found  that  the  animals  were  improperly  raised, 
kept  in  small  pens,  and  not  allowed  to  exercise.  There  is  no  theoretical  reason 
why  garbage  should  be  bad  for  hogs.  Even  putrefying  materials  may  be 
transformed  into  delicious  human  food;  for  example,  lobsters,  crabs,  shrimp, 
etc.,  feed  almost  exclusively  on  decaying  fish;  and  the  common  barnyard 
chicken  will  eat  and  thrive  on  almost  all  kinds  of  so-called  filth. 

"  Recently,  garbage-fed  hogs  were  raised  at  the  experimental  station  of  a 
Middle  Western  State  and  marketed  at  the  same  time  as  hogs  fed  on  corn  and 
other  grains.  The  carcasses  of  these  garbage-fed  hogs  could  not  be  dis- 
tinguished by  the  officials  of  one  of  the  large  packing  houses  from  corn-fed 
hogs,  and  were  even  given  a  higher  grading  than  some  of  the  hogs  fed  on  cer- 
tain grains. 

2.  "  Gain  in  Weight  per  Pound  of  Garbage  Eaten. — A  number  of  tests 
have  been  made  which  establish  that  a  gain  of  about  a  pound  per  day  can  be 
expected  with  growing  hogs.  This  means  roughly  that  a  ton  of  garbage  is 
equal  to  100  pounds  of  live  weight  gained.  It  does  not  mean,  however,  that 
tons  of  garbage  as  produced  multiphed  by  100  equals  the  live  weight  to  be  put 
on  the  market.  A  certain  percentage  of  loss  in  stock  is  always  to  be  expected, 
and  even  with  the  fullest  co-operation  with  householders,  city  officials,  etc.,  a 
certain  amount  of  inedible  material,  and  even  inedible  garbage,  wiU  always  be 
present. 

"  Some  feeders  are  stating  that  the  quality  of  the  garbage  now  produced  is 
not  as  good  as  that  of  a  year  ago — that  more  garbage  must  be  eaten  to  produce 
a  pound  gain.  This  is  not  definitely  established,  but  it  is  reasonable  to  sup- 
pose that  with  high  prices,  etc.,  the  quality  is  not  as  good.  We  recommend 
that,  to  cover  losses  and  a  possible  decrease  in  the  quality  of  the  garbage 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS  279 

fed,  the  amount  of  marketable  live  weight  Vjc  aHsumcd  at  1  lb.  to  50  lb.  of 
garbage.     With  careful  management  the  ratio  could  be  lowered  considerably. 

****** 

3.  "  Location  of  Fiirm. — The  distance  of  the  farm  from  the  municipality 
naturally  depends  on  local  conditions.  With  wagon  or  truck  haulage,  dis- 
tance is  an  important  factor,  but  with  carload  lots  an  additional  lO-mile  haul 
adds  very  little  to  the  freight  rate,  and  a  more  ideal  location  may  be  selected. 

"  The  pig  farm  should  be  located  on  soil  that  drains  readily,  preferably  sand 
or  gravel.  For  the  same  reason  it  is  advisable  that  the  land  be  rolling;  the 
houses  should  then  be  located  for  warmth  in  winter  and  coolness  in  summer. 
Good  drainage  is  essential  at  all  seasons. 

"  Garbage-fed  hogs  require  abundant  drinking  water.  If  any  streams  or 
brooks  are  included  in  the  property,  they  should  be  carefully  traced  and  their 
purity  established,  or  else  fenced  off  so  that  the  animals  will  drink  pure  water 
otherwise  supplied. 

"  The  size  of  the  farm  necessary  varies  with  the  system  of  handling.  With 
feeding  out  of  doors  in  all  but  extreme  weather,  assume  .50  pigs  per  acre. 
Under  cover,  the  number  can  be  increased  to  from  400  to  600  per  acre. 

4.  "  Methods  of  Feeding. — The  two  general  methods  of  feeding  depend 
primarily  on  how  the  material  is  dehvered  to  the  farm.  When  in  wagonloads 
or  by  motor  truck,  it  wQl  probably  be  advantageous  to  have  what  are  known  as 
feeding  lots.  These  lots  are  about  an  acre  in  size,  and  contain  one  or  more 
feeding  platforms  made  of  lumber,  and  of  sufficient  size  to  hold  a  load  of  gar- 
bage as  delivered.  The  platforms  are  on  skids,  and  have  a  low  rail,  a  2  by 
4-in.,  nailed  on  edge,  to  help  prevent  the  garbage  being  shoved  off  the  platform. 

"The  pigs  are  permitted  to  enter  the  feeding  lot  only  after  the  garbage  has 
been  dumped  and  the  vehicle  has  left  the  lot.  This  prevents  injury  dm'ing 
unloading  and  avoids  garbage  being  thrown  on  the  pigs. 

"After  feeding,  the  pigs  are  shut  out  of  the  lots,  the  bones  gathered,  the 
platforms  cleaned  and  skidded  to  a  new  location.  The  ground  beneath  and 
around  the  old  site  is  plowed  under,  and  danger  of  odors  from  all  spilled  gar- 
bage or  moisture  eliminated.  The  feed  lots  are  changed  from  time  to  time,  and 
various  forage  crops  grown  on  the  lots  thus  fertilized  by  uneaten  garbage  and 
manure.  This  appreciation  of  the  soil  is  important,  and  land  that  wUl  benefit 
by  such  fertilization  can  well  be  purchased  rather  than  land  totally  unsuited 
for  tillage  and  the  raising  of  crops. 

"  Where  delivery  is  made  in  carload  lots,  the  labor  expense  of  rehandling 
may  eat  up  a  large  part  of  the  feed  value.  Under  such  conditions  the  hogs  are 
brought  to  the  garbage,  and  the  feeding  platforms  are  adjacent  to  the  railroad 
tracks.  Cement  platforms  soon  become  eaten  by  the  acid  in  garbage,  but  some 
impervious  material  must  be  used  where  the  platforms  can  not  be  moved 
about  and  the  ground  underneath  turned  over.  The  use  of  narrow  troughs 
is  objectionable.  Not  only  do  they  become  so  eaten  by  the  acid  as  to  be  hard 
to  clean,  but  it  is  much  better  to  spread  the  material  out  on  a  flat  surface  where 
the  hog  will  have  an  opportunity  to  sort  and  reject  any  injurious  matter. 

"  The  best  garbage  should  be  fed  to  fattening  stock  or  to  sows  with  young 


280    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

pigs.  When  open-lot  feeding  is  practiced,  this  is  a  simple  procedure,  since 
the  material  collected  in  the  better  portions  of  the  city  can  be  reserved  for 
these  particular  purposes.  With  carload  lots  the  same  effect  is  produced  by 
first  permitting  only  the  fattening  stock  to  the  platforms.  After  these  have 
become  satisfied,  a  second  lot,  say,  young  shoats,  are  let  in.  In  the  same  way  a 
third  or  even  a  fourth  lot  are  given  an  opportunity.  Not  only  is  the  better 
garbage  eaten  by  the  most  important  portion  of  the  stock,  but  the  garbage  is 
eaten  more  closely.  The  last  lot,  generally  brood  sows,  are  kept  hungry  and 
can  be  relied  upon  to  clean  up  all  the  edible  material  remaining. 

"The  feeding  of  frozen  garbage  during  the  winter  months  is  not  consid- 
ered advisable.  It  may  be  unavoidable,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that 
before  this  food  can  be  digested  its  temperature  must  be  raised  to  that  of  the 
stomach.  This  requires  a  certain  amount  of  energy,  more  cheaply  supplied 
by  mechanical  means  than  by  the  body  heat  of  the  animal.  Considerable 
frozen  garbage  is  being  fed,  but  not  as  good  gains  in  weight  are  obtained. 
Where  the  material  is  thawed  before  feeding,  the  gains  are  said  to  equal  those 
of  other  seasons. 

"All  authorities  agree  that  abundant  fresh  water  must  be  available  at  all 
times.  If  possible,  some  sort  of  heater  should  be  provided  to  prevent  freezing 
during  severe  weather. 

5.  "  Use  of  Supplementary  Feeds. — Most  garbage  is  more  or  less  a  bal- 
anced ration  and  no  supplementary  feeds  are  required.  We  find,  however,  in  a 
number  of  places,  that  animals  are  finished  off  with  corn;  in  others  wheat, 
middlings,  or  similar  feed  is  given  to  brood  sows,  or  corn  silage  is  fed  on  Sun- 
days. As  a  rule,  however,  no  feed  other  than  garbage  is  provided.  Other 
feeds,  and  particularly  pasturage,  may  cause  gains  to  be  made  in  quicker  time. 
With  hotel  and  other  special  garbage  a  certain  amoimt  of  roughage  may  be 
desirable  and  even  necessary.  The  opinions  of  different  raisers  vary  greatly, 
with  the  personal  qualifications  of  the  man  feeding  providing  the  most  impor- 
tant factor.  No  differences  in  results  are  claimed  by  those  supplementing 
garbage  as  compared  with  those  feeding  garbage  alone. 

6.  "  Amount  to  Feed. — In  using  grain  feeds  it  has  been  conclusively  shown 
that  greater  gains  can  be  made  per  pound  when  the  feed  is  available  to  the 
animals  at  all  times.  The  same  result  not  unnaturally  seems  to  hold  with 
garbage  feeding.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  percentage  of  water  in 
garbage  is  much  higher  than  in  grain  feed.  The  animal  must,  therefore,  fill  up 
oftener  to  obtain  the  same  amount  of  sustaining  matter.  This  means  that 
the  garbage  must  be  available  to  the  animals  for  a  considerable  portion  of 
the  day. 

7.  "  Cost  of  Feeding. — The  cost  of  operation  at  a  farm  depends  almost 
entirely  on  conditions  at  the  piggery  in  question;  any  comparisons  would  be 
misleading  unless  a  careful  analysis  of  all  factors  leading  up  to  and  depending 
on  such  costs  were  considered. 

"  In  a  genera]  way  it  is  safe  to  assume  that  the  cost  of  disposal  after  the 
farm  is  reached,  including  overhead  charges  at  the  farm,  would  not  exceed  $3 
per  ton.  Less  costs  are  reported,  and  the  above  figure  permits  of  reduction 
with  careful  management.    A  supplementary  source  of  revenue  at  a  farm  is  the 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS 


281 


bones  recovered, 
forms  each  day. 


These  are  collected  preparatory  to  cleaning  up  the  plat- 
The  amount  recovered  runs  from  75  to  100  lb.  per  ton  of 


8.  "  Nixmber  of  Animals  per  Pen. — The  losses  due  to  '  piling  up  '  are  so 
heavy  that  each  hog  raiser  has  very  positive  ideas  as  to  the  number  of  animals 
per  pen.     Some  say  that  as  low  as  10  is  the  number  to  be  allowed  in  a  shelter. 

"  Individual  pens  should  be  provided  for  each  brood  sow,  or  at  the  most 
two  sows  should  share  the  same  pen.  Upon  being  weaned  the  young  pigs 
should  be  kept  8  or  10  to  a  pen  until  about  eight  or  ten  weeks  old.  Efforts 
should  be  made  to  keep  in  each  pen  pigs  of  approximately  the  same  size. 
When  over  60  to  75  lb.  in  weight  they  can  be  turned  out  into  comparatively 
large  lots.  The  larger  the  animals  the  more  can  be  put  together  in  a  single 
inclosure  without  danger.  Our  records  indicate  that  as  high  as  500  to  600 
animals  have  been  kept  in  a  single  inclosure  without  sufficient  piling  up  to 
cause  harm." 

Some  tests,  at  Louisville,  on  the  feeding  and  growth  of  hogs 
showed  that  32.4  lb.  of  city  garbage  were  required  to  add  1  lb.  to  the 
weight  of  the  animal.  The  tests  lasted  seven  weeks,  and  from  25  to 
40  hogs  were  under  observation.  With  pork  on  the  hoof  at  15  cents 
per  pound,  the  garbage  would  have  a  gross  value  of  $9.26  per  ton,  but 
it  was  sold  by  the  city  at  that  time  (September,  1918)  at  from  13.00  to 
S3. 50  per  ton.  At  Worcester  it  has  been  found  that  37.5  lb.  of  gar- 
bage are  required  for  each  pound  gained  by  the  hogs.  Hotel  garbage 
has  a  higher  food  value,  and,  in  St.  Louis,  it  has  been  found  that 
only  25  lb.  of  such  garbage  produced  a  gain  of  1  lb.  in  the  weight  of 
the  hog.  This  result  has  also  been  confirmed  by  tests  at  the  Iowa 
Agricultural  Experiment  Station.  With  pork  at  15  cents  per  pound, 
hotel  garbage,  for  feeding  purposes,  should  have  a  gross  value  of  $12.00 
per  ton.  From  this  gross  value  one  must  deduct  the  cost  of  plant 
operation,  risk,  overhead,  etc.,  and  such  costs  are  quite  variable. 
In  Worcester,  in  1916,  the  total  annual  cost  was  estimated  at  S2.30 
per  ton.  Contractors,  however,  do  not  seem  to  be  willing  to  pay  much 
more  than  $1.00  per  ton  for  city  garbage,  and  in  some  cases  less,  some 
contract  prices  being  as  follows : 


City 


Year 


Price  paid  by  contractor 
to  city  per  ton  of 
garbage  delivered 


Minneapolis,  Minn.  . 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 

Portland,  Ore 

Newark,  N.  J 

St.  Paul,  Minn 

Anderson,  Ind 


1918 
1917 
1918 
1919 
1917 
1917 


$1.26 
0.45 
3.90 
1.20=' 
1.95 
1.00 


*  Computed  at  eight  times  the  pound  nrice  of  live  pork  in  Chicago. 


282     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Ordinarily,  contractors  agree  to  dispose  of  the  garbage,  exclusive 
of  collection,  free  of  cost  to  the  municipality,  or  for  a  nominal  sum. 
At  Omaha  the  contractor  paid  the  city  a  nominal  sum.  At  South 
Bend  an  offer  of  $1  per  ton  was  made  for  city  garbage,  including  the 
hotel  garbage,  under  a  ten-year  contract.  At  Denver  the  contractor 
collected  and  disposed  of  the  garbage,  a  few  years  ago,  at  no  cost  to 
the  city.  In  1917  New  York  suburban  farmers  paid  from  75  cents 
to  $1  a  ton  for  hotel  garbage;  in  1918  they  paid  from  $1.38  to  $3.27 
a  ton. 

D.  NUMBER  OF  HOGS  REQUIRED 

The  number  of  hogs  required  to  dispose  of  garbage  from  different 
populations  varies,  of  course,  with  the  season  and  other  local  consid- 
erations.    The  available  data  on  this  subject  are  presented  in  Table  82. 


E.  CHARACTER  OF  PORK 

The  quaUty  of  the  hog  meat  should  be  judged  by  the  following 
characteristics:  Hardness,  color,  oihness,  and  clearness.  In  other 
words,  the  meat  should  be  hard,  white,  and  free  from  oihness  and 
irregularities.  Garbage-fed  hogs  compare  favorably  on  this  basis 
with  others.  At  Worcester  the  loss  from  condemned  meat  has 
recently  been  less  than  50  lb.  in  100,000  lb.,  or  1  lb.  per  ton. 

The  principal  difference  between  garbage-fed  and  grain-fed  hogs 
is  not  in  the  quality  of  the  meat,  but  in  the  jdeld  of  pork,  which 
may  be  10%  less  for  those  fed  with  garbage.  Professor  Evvard 
(Agricultural  College,  Ames,  Iowa)  found  that  garbage-fed  hogs," 
dressing  to  74.2  to  76.8%,  will  run  about  3%  below  grain-fed  hogs. 
Garbage-fed  hogs  will  shrink  about  5%  in  shipping.  As  regards  the 
finished  products,  however,  there  is  practically  no  difference. 


F.  CONSTRUCTION  AND  OPERATION 

Construction  and  proper  equipment  are  essential  elements  in  the 
successful  management  of  a  hog  farm.  Where  prevention  of  disease 
is  so  vital  to  a  continuous  service,  economy  demands  that  the  greatest 
cleanhness  be  observed.  The  buildings  should  be  substantial,  well 
lighted,  well  ventilated,  and  have  smooth  concrete  floors.  Concrete, 
to  resist  gradual  injury  by  weak  acids,  should  be  thoroughly  dense,  have 
a  smooth  surface,  and  not  contain  more  cement  than  required  to  fill  the 
pores  of  fine  sand  at  the  surface 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS  283 

The  more  buildings  are  provided  for  hog  feeding,  the  less  will  be 
the  likelihood  of  nuisance,  and  the  smaller  is  the  area  of  land  that  will 
suffice. 

The  roadways  and  feeding  pens  should  also  be  of  concrete.  There 
should  be  plenty  of  water  available  for  washing  and  flushing,  and 
good  sewerage.  At  large  farms,  corn  kept  in  silos  is  used  for  feeding 
on  Sundays  and  holidays,  when  no  garbage  is  delivered. 

Of  particular  importance  is  the  additional  establishment  about  the 
farm  of  a  sanitary  method  of  disposing  of  garbage  which  is  not  suit- 
able for  feeding.  It  can  be  buried  in  a  proper  soil  (Chapter  VII); 
or  it  can  be  burned  in  a  furnace.  Some  method  of  disposing  of  tin 
cans,  other  than  by  dumping,  is  desirable  (Chapter  IX).  A  proper 
method  of  disposing  of  the  manure  of  hogs  is  also  necessary. 

Experience  at  Worcester  and  at  Highland  Park  indicates  that  hog 
manure  and  garbage  not  eaten  may  amount  to  from  30  to  50%  of 
the  quantity  of  garbage  received.  If  the  manure  and  waste  is  buried 
in  furrows  by  plowing,  followed  by  hand  trimming  or  scraping,  and 
allowance  is  made  for  re-use  every  two  years,  from  0.67  to  1  acre  will 
be  required  for  1  ton  of  manure  and  waste  per  day. 

Sanitary  methods  of  operating  hog  farms  are  essential.  No 
garbage  should  be  delivered  unless  it  is  fresh,  and  every  part  of  the 
works  should  be  kept  thoroughly  clean  at  all  times.  Compared  with 
other  methods  of  disposal,  the  delivery  of  clean  garbage  to  farmers 
for  feeding  is  quite  satisfactory.  The  State  should  keep  a  record  of  the 
sanitary  condition  of  the  garbage  farms,  and  any  poorly  kept  farm 
should  be  either  at  once  improved  or  abandoned. 

The  odors  from  garbage  when  it  is  fed  in  buildings  do  not  usually 
extend  more  than  about  150  ft.,  and  300  ft.  is  a  reasonably  safe 
margin. 

It  is  advisable  to  provide  sufficient  area  to  grow  corn  for  feed,  and 
to  build  silos  for  its  storage.  Provision  should  also  be  made  for 
warming  parts  of  the  garbage  in  winter.  Good  receiving  and  shipping 
facilities  are  essential. 

The  costs  of  construction  and  operation  of  the  Worcester  and 
Stony  Wold  Sanatorium  farms  have  been  given. 

Cost  data  for  the  construction  of  hog  farms  are  available  in  only  a 
few  cases.  An  estimate  of  cost  made  by  Greeley  in  1916  for  a  farm 
for  Winnetka  and  Glencoe,  to  have  330  hogs  and  serve  a  population 
of  9000,  is  shown  in  Table  86. 

At  Danville  a  farm  was  planned  for  inside  feeding,  the  design  of 
the  hog  houses  being  shown  in  Fig.  74.  Table  83  shows  the  operating 
data  of  the  Worcester  hog  farm. 

Fig.  75  is  a  design  for  a  hog  farm  suggested  in  Circular  No.  80  of 


284    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 
Table    86. — Estimated    Cost    of    Construction    of    a    Hog    Farm 

AT  WiNNETKA,   IlL.,   IN   1913 

Population  served,  9000 

330  hogs  at  $5 $  1,650 

Horses  and  harness 1,000 

Boiler  house  and  steriUzing  equipment 5,000 

Buildings,  pens,  and  fences 10  000 

Farm  house 3,000 

Water  supply 2,350 

Railroad  siding 1  000 

Land,  10  acres,  at  $300 3,000 

$27,000 

Engineering  and  contingencies 3,000 

Total $30,000 


SECTION 

Fig.  74. — Proposed  Hog  House,  Danville,  111. 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS 


285 


the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  from  which  circular  the 
following  brief  description  is  abstracted. 

V 


A 

' 

Vm 

U.'  £ 

=> 

^ 

A 

M  a 

^  u 

u^ 

K 

Fig.  75. — Suggested  Design  for  a  Hog  Farm. 

(From  Circular  No.  80,  U.  S.  Dept.  Agriculture,  1916). 

The  feeding  pens  are  generally  placed  side  by  side,  fronting  a 
central  driveway,  through  which  the  garbage  is  hauled.  The  pens 
should  have  a  concrete  feeding  floor  which  should  be  surrounded  with 


286     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

a  run.  Some  feeders  prefer  troughs.  Plank  flooring  is  undesirable, 
as  it  is  almost  impossible  to  keep  it  clean. 

The  sleeping  quarters  may  be  built  just  back  of  the  feeding  floor. 
Each  pen  should  have  a  plot,  or,  if  possible,  a  pasture,  in  order  to 
provide  a  place  for  exercise,  and  here,  in  some  cases,  it  may  be  possible 
to  supply  the  hogs  with  a  crop  of  rape  seed,  soy  beans,  or  other  green 
forage.  The  pens  should  have  gates  so  that  wagons  may  be  driven 
through,  in  order  to  facilitate  cleaning  and  the  movement  of  the 
animals,  and  these  gates  should  be  arranged  so  that  the  hogs  can  be 
shut  off  the  feeding  floors  while  the  garbage  is  being  dumped  in,  and 
also  while  the  floors  are  being  cleaned.  In  the  plan  shown,  the  gates 
are  arranged  so  that  wagons  may  pass  across  all  the  feeding  floors 
except  those  of  the  farrowing  pens,  in  order  to  clean  the  floors  and  the 
shelters  at  the  same  time. 

The  pens  for  fattening  hogs  and  for  young  stock  are  of  various  sizes 
because  it  has  been  found  practicable  to  keep  fattening  hogs  and  brood 
sows  in  larger  numbers  than  are  safe  for  young  stock. 

In  this  design  the  farrowing  pens  and  lots  are  placed  between  the 
pens  and  lots  intended  for  other  stock.  Such  a  plan  is  convenient  for  a 
large  establishment,  but,  if  hogs  are  purchased  and  fattened  and  no 
stock  is  raised,  the  central  building  may  be  omitted  and  the  fattening 
pens  built  on  each  side  of  a  central  driveway. 

The  plan  is  not  intended  to  fit  every  case,  nor  is  it  complete  in  aU 
details.  The  scale  and  system  of  operation,  topography,  available 
capital,  convenience,  etc.,  are  factors  which  should  determine  the 
arrangement  of  pens,  houses,  and  other  equipment. 


G.  ADVANTAGES  AND  DISADVANTAGES 

Apparently,  there  is  quite  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  sani- 
tary features  of  garbage  disposal  by  feeding.  Some  authorities 
consider  the  process  a  thoroughly  sanitary  one,  and  recommend  it 
because  of  its  comparative  economy.  Some  few  have  opposed  the 
process  as  a  nuisance  and  as  unsanitary.  The  authors  share  the 
following  publicly  expressed  opinions,  provided  the  garbage  is  fed 
while  fresh  and  the  works  are  carefully  and  properly  designed,  built, 
and  managed. 

a.  Dr.  Charles  V.  Chapin,  Health  Commissioner,  Providence,  R.  I.,  in 
his  annual  report  for  1902,  states  that  "  Feeding  garbage  to  swine  will  not 
cause  disease  either  in  Providence  or  in  other  towns  to  which  it  is  removed. 
In  an  experience  of  nineteen  years  I  have  never  found  a  case  of  sickness  that 
could  be  thus  explained." 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS  287 

h.  Dr.  F.  M.  Koon,*  of  the  Michigan  State  Board  of  Health,  in  1912,  when 
describing  the  Grand  Rapids  hog  farm,  states  that  "  Everything  is  well  kept 
and  orderly.  It  seems  that  the  City  of  Grand  Rapids  is  disposing  of  its  gar- 
bage and  waste  in  an  economical  and  satisfactory  way.  I  conclude  by  saying 
that  the  garbage  of  this  city  is  disposed  of  cheaply,  satisfactorUy,  and  in  a 
sanitary  manner." 

c.  Dr.  Edward  CahiU,  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry, 
states  that  95%  of  all  the  hogs  of  Massachusetts  are  fed  on  garbage,  with  gen- 
erally satisfactory  results. 

The  general  advantages  of  garbage  disposal  by  feeding  to  hogs  may 
be  stated  as  follows : 

1.  The  annual  cost  is  low,  compared  wdth  most  other  methods  of 
disposal,  particularly  for  the  smaller  cities  and  towns,  with  popula- 
tions of  less  than  about  75,000,  and  often  a  profit  can  be  returned  to 
the  city. 

2.  As  hog  farms  are  generally  at  some  distance  from  the  community, 
and  often  at  several  comparatively  remote  individual  farms,  they 
afford  a  disposal  which,  because  remote,  does  not  require  continuous 
supervision  by  the  municipality.  In  small  communities,  the  opera- 
tion may  be  comparatively  simple. 

3.  Garbage  fed  to  hogs  must  be  reasonably  fresh,  and  therefore 
must  be  collected  frequently.  This  is  an  advantage,  because  it 
demands  the  best  possible  collection  service. 

The  disadvantages  may  be  stated  as  follows : 

1.  The  danger  of  losing  hogs  by  disease  is  always  present.  Should 
many  of  the  hogs  die,  the  regular  method  of  garbage  disposal  would  be 
seriously  crippled.  This  result  would  be  more  serious  in  a  large 
than  in  a  small  city. 

2.  In  some  localities  the  comparatively  large  farm  area  required 
near-by  is  not  available. 

3.  The  practice  of  allowing  a  large  number  of  farmers  to  collect 
garbage  in  a  city,  for  feeding  to  hogs,  makes  supervision  difficult. 

H.  SPECIFICATIONS 

Although  the  municipal  operation  of  hog  farms  may  frequently  be 
preferable,  under  favorable  conditions,  it  will  be  advantageous  at  present 
in  many  cities  to  entrust  this  method  of  disposal  to  a  contractor.  It 
then  becomes  necessary  for  the  city  to  embody  suitable  specifications 
in  the  contract. 

Heretofore,  specifications  for  garbage  disposal  by  feeding  to  hogs 
have  been  very  general  in  statement.     They  should  generally  include 

*  Public  Health,  Lansing,  Mich.,  for  January-March,  1912 


288     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

a  more  definite  description  of  the  character  of  the  structures  to  be 
built  at  the  farm,  and  sufficient  to  insure  sanitary  operation.  The 
specifications  should  not  be  limited  to  a  general  requirement  for 
sanitary  upkeep  and  operation,  but  the  necessary  works  and  appa- 
ratus to  secure  the  cleanliness  and  healthfulness  of  the  hogs  should 
be  specified  with  as  much  detail  as  practicable. 

In  1906  a  contract  was  made  between  Grand  Rapids,  Mich.,  and 
the  Utilization  Company,  which  is  summarized  as  follows : 

1.  The  city  is  to  collect  the  garbage,  tin  cans,  and  unbroken  bottles,  and 
deliver  them  daily  to  the  contractor. 

2.  The  contractor  is  to  dispose  of  the  materials  thus  delivered  in  a  sanitary 
manner  outside  of  the  city  limits. 

3.  The  deUvery  of  the  collected  materials  is  to  be  made  to  the  contractor 
in  his  vehicles  or,  at  such  convenient  places  as  may  be  agreed  on,  where  it 
can  be  loaded  on  these  vehicles  without  expense  to  the  contractor. 

4.  Garbage  shall  be  held  to  include  waste  or  decayed  fruit,  animal  and 
vegetable  matter,  liquid  and  otherwise,  which  attends  the  preparation,  use, 
cooking,  dealing  in,  or  storing  of,  meat,  fish,  fowl,  fruit,  or  vegetable  matter  of 
aU  kinds,  whether  from  private  or  public  houses  or  maniifactories,  but  not 
ashes,  manure,  night-soU,  or  rubbish. 

5.  The  city  agrees  to  make  collections  not  less  than  twice  each  week, 
except  that  from  November  15th  to  March  15th  in  each  year  the  collections 
wUl  not  be  oftener  than  once  each  week. 

6.  The  delivery  of  materials  shall  be  under  the  management  of  the  Board 
of  Health  of  the  city. 

7.  The  points  of  delivery  shall  be  selected  by  mutual  agreement  between 
the  city  and  the  contractor. 

8.  The  contractor  agrees  to  dispose  of  the  garbage  free  of  cost  to  the  city. 

9.  The  contractor  agrees  to  conduct  the  business  of  disposing  of  the  gar- 
bage in  a  careful  manner,  and  to  observe  any  rules  and  regulations  that  may  be 
made  by  any  competent  authority  in  reference  to  its  sanitary  disposal;  and 
the  work  of  removing  it  from  the  city  shall  be  done  in  a  manner  satisfactory 
to  the  Board  of  Health. 

The  contract,  made  in  1908  at  Denver,  requires  that  the  garbage 
shall  be  disposed  of  by  feeding  to  hogs  or  otherwise,  as  fast  as  accumu- 
lated. For  the  protection  of  the  City,  the  contractor  should  be 
bonded  against  unsanitary  operation. 


I.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  disposal  of  garbage  by  feeding  to  hogs  is  an  old  standard 
practice,  and  utilizes  the  food  value,  which  is  its  greatest  value,  unless 
the  time  and  the  expense  of  taking  it  from  house  to  farm,  before  it 
becomes  uneatable,  is  too  great.    Therefore,  it  is  specially  adapted 


FEEDING  GARBAGE  TO  HOGS  289 

to  small  cities,  towns,  and  villages;  or  by  special  daily  collections 
also  from  hotels  and  eating  houses  in  large  cities. 

To  utilize  its  greatest  value  it  is  necessary  at  the  house  to  keep  the 
garbage  thoroughly  well  separated  from  all  other  refuse,  and  to  have 
frequent  collections,  from  two  to  six  or  seven  times  a  week,  according 
to  character  of  district,  season,  and  general  climate.  It  is  also  neces- 
sary to  have  suitably  designed,  well-managed,  and  thoroughly  clean 
feeding  establishments.  The  management  should  include  an  expert 
capable  of  taking  care  of  the  sanitary  conditions  of  the  food  from 
the  time  of  collection  to  the  time  of  feeding,  and  able  to  combat  hog 
cholera  or  other  diseases,  should  they  appear.  This  care  is  important, 
because  a  neglected  farm  is  likely  to  have  unfortunate  results.  Whether 
the  garbage  is  collected  and  disposed  of  by  contract  or  city  forces,  a 
thoroughly  well  organized  supervision  is  essential  for  success. 

Farms  should  be  kept  as  free  as  possible  from  rats  and  flies  by 
properly  planning  all  structures  and  by  a  free  use  of  traps.  Inciner- 
ators, burial  areas,  or  compost  pits  for  all  unconsumed  garbage  are 
necessary. 

Cooking  or  warming  the  garbage  just  before  feeding  has  here  and 
there  met  with  success,  particularly  when  the  garbage  was  stale.  The 
quality  of  the  pork  produced  on  the  best-managed  garbage-feeding 
farms  has  been  fully  equal  to  that  secured  by  corn-feeding. 

The  most  serious  drawback  in  hog  feeding  with  garbage  has  been 
the  difficulty  of  obtaining  in  all  localities  reliably  tested  and  standard- 
ized serum  and  virus  for  inoculation  against  cholera,  which  produces 
immunity;  yet  this  difficulty  is  being  gradually  removed.  Pneu- 
monia, which  has  occasionally  visited  the  farms,  can  be  prevented  by 
proper  housing  and  protection  from  the  influence  of  bad  weather. 
Against  the  foot-and-mouth  disease  there  does  not  seem  to  be  a 
reliable  remedy,  as  yet. 

A  hog  farm  should  be  established  on  a  well-drained  and,  preferably, 
a  sandy  or  gravelly  soil.  The  houses  should  be  built  for  warmth  in 
winter  and  coolness  in  summer.  Plenty  of  water  should  be  available 
for  drinking  and  cleansing.  All  unconsumed  food  and  all  excreta 
should  be  removed  and  disposed  of  frequently  and  thoroughly,  and 
the  feeding  platforms  should  be  washed  before  the  next  feeding, 


CHAPTER    IX 
SORTING  RUBBISH 

All  classes  of  municipal  refuse  contain  some  articles  which  may  be 
picked  out,  sorted,  and  sold.  Rubbish,  much  more  than  other  kinds 
of  refuse,  contains  such  articles  as  paper,  rags,  rubber,  bottles,  tin 
cans,  bits  of  metal,  old  shoes,  etc.  At  disposal  works,  laborers  occa- 
sionally find  silver  spoons,  coins,  jewels,  and  other  valuables  in  the 
collected  material. 

Picking  over  this  rubbish,  and  marketing  the  salable  portions,  is 
an  old  custom,  and  is  practiced  with  many  variations.  In  Paris, 
members  of  the  historic  company  of  "  Rag-pickers  "  (Chiffoniers) 
examine  the  house  cans  before  collection,  and  take  out  that  which 
they  can  use  or  sell.  They  remove  from  the  refuse  all  materials 
that  have  any  value  before  it  is  collected  for  final  disposal.  There- 
fore, there  is  very  little  material  left  to  be  picked  out  at  the  delivery 
point.  It  is  estimated  that  the  annual  receipts  of  this  ambulating 
Parisian  rubbish  picking  establishment  have  amounted  to  many  thou- 
sands of  dollars. 

Some  picking  over  or  scavenging  is  done  at  most  of  the  refuse 
dumps  in  American  cities  by  unlicensed  scavengers,  and  frequently 
without  municipal  supervision.  It  is  generally  an  unsightly  activity, 
because  the  pickers  are  often  slovenly  and  unclean,  and  allow  smaU 
children  to  assist  them.  Under  proper  control,  however,  this  work 
at  dumps  may  be  fairly  satisfactory  and  bring  a  substantial  revenue 
to  the  municipality.  The  total  weight  of  rubbish  systematically 
picked  out  and  sold  has  occasionally  ranged  from  30  to  50%  of  the 
total  rubbish  collected. 

The  practice  of  sorting  is  not  complicated,  but  it  is  open  to  the 
uncontrollable  danger  of  transmitting  diseases  through  germs  in 
sweepings,  bedding,  and  discarded  materials  from  rooms  where 
patients  having  infectious  diseases  have  been  confined. 

The  collection  service  should  be  arranged  so  as  to  bring  the  rubbish 
to  the  sorting  plant  in  as  dry  and  clean  a  condition  as  practicable,  in 
order  that  the  recovery  may  be  worth  while,  and  the  ordinary  second- 

290 


SORTING  RUBBISH  201 

hand  value  of  the  materials  approached  as  nearly  as  possible.  The 
layout  of  conveyors,  presses,  and  other  machinery  at  the  plant  should 
be  arranged  so  that  the  operators  can  work  with  the  greatest  efficiency 
and  with  as  little  lost  motion  as  possible.  Clean  and  sanitary  condi- 
tions should  be  maintained  everywhere,  and  good  ventilation  is  essen- 
tial. Most  of  the  machinery  required  is  on  the  market,  and  can  be 
arranged  and  erected  to  suit  each  layout.  The  plant  in  large  cities 
should  be  near  a  railroad,  in  order  to  facilitate  shipments  of  the 
recovered  materials. 


A.  DESIGN  AND  CONSTRUCTION 

When  carefully  developed,  the  sorting  is  carried  on  in  buildings 
fitted  with  conveyors  on  which  the  rubbish  is  spread  out  before  the 
pickers.  There  are  also  bins  for  temporary  storage,  and  presses  and 
other  machinery  for  preparing  the  sorted  materials  for  shipment.  An 
incinerator  usually  adjoins  the  building,  and  in  it  the  residue  is  burned. 

The  design  of  a  rubbish  sorting  plant  involves  first,  a  decision  as  to 
the  extent  to  which  the  recovery  shall  be  carried,  then  a  selection  of 
the  machinery,  and  finally  the  arrangement  of  the  parts  so  as  to  pro- 
mote efficient  and  sanitary  operation.  The  various  parts  are  described 
in  this  chapter. 

1.  Receiving  Arrangements. — Rubbish,  weighing  only  about  200  lb. 
per  cubic  yard,  has  a  comparatively  large  volume.  The  per  capita 
production  varies  considerably  in  different  cities.  In  Buffalo  it 
amounts  to  as  much  as  68  lb.  per  capita  per  year.  The  quantity  deliv- 
ered each  day  to  the  sorting  plant  averages  50  tons,  or,  at  times,  more 
than  500  cu.  yd.  Owing  to  this  large  volume,  ample  space  must 
be  provided  for  unloading  and  handling  it.  The  collection  wagons 
ordinarily  drive  on  a  dumping  platform  in  the  building.  The  dumped 
material  is  then  raked  by  hand  to  a  sorting  conveyor.  A  hopper  is 
sometimes  placed  over  the  conveyor  (Rochester)  to  facilitate  the 
raking. 

2.  Conveyors. — When  the  volume  of  rubbish  is  large,  the  conveyor 
must  be  long  enough  to  permit  of  spreading  it  out  in  a  thin  layer 
so  that  all  pieces  may  be  seen  by  the  pickers.  At  Fort  Hill  Wharf, 
Boston,  the  conveyor  is  100  ft.  long.  The  belt  should  be  of  such  a 
width  that  the  pickers  on  each  side  may  reach  to  the  center  conveni- 
ently. It  is  generally  made  of  steel  slats  running  on  endless  chains 
on  each  side. 

The  conveyor  usually  moves  up  an  incline,  and  carries  the  rubbish 
to  the  sorting  platforms  placed  on  each  side.    At  the  Delancey  Street 


292     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


plant,  New  York  City,  the  conveyor  was  of  the  apron  type,  48  in. 
wide,  with  side  angles  to  confine  the  rubbish.  The  slats  were  each 
6  in.  wide,  extending  entirely  across  the  belt  and  lapping  over  one 
another,  so  that  there  was  no  open  space  between  them  when  they 
traveled  over  the  head-shafts.  The  speed  was  about  60  ft.  per 
minute. 

3.  Storage  Bins. — A  storage  bin  must  be  provided  for  each  kind 
and  grade  of  material  to  be  sorted.  The  bins  are  commonly  arranged 
in  two  rows,  one  on  each  side  of  the  conveyor,  and  are  separated  from 
it  by  the  platforms  on  which  the  pickers  stand.  They  are  usually 
in  the  second  story  of  the  building,  and  discharge  by  gravity  to  the 
baling  presses  below.     The  bins  for  glass,  iron,  leather,  twine,  etc., 

should  also  be  on  the  second 
floor,  in  order  to  permit  of 
spouting  the  materials  into 
cars  or  wagons.  The  capacity 
of  the  bins  depends  on  the 
nature  of  the  material  and 
the  schedule  of  operations. 
Each  paper  bin  should  hold 
about  2  cu.  yd. 

4.  Baling  Presses. — A  bal- 
ing press  consists  of  a  wooden 
or  steel  casing  set  in  a  heavy 
frame,  within  which  there  are 
pistons  which  may  be  operated 
by  hand,  through  gears,  or  by 
a  belt-  or  gear-connected  mo- 
tor. A  large-sized  press  is  4 
ft.  6  in.  by  2  ft.  3  in.  in  plan, 
and  6  ft.  deep,  and  can  turn 
out  a  bale  of  waste  paper 
weighing  from  500  to  800  lb. 
A  press  of  this  type,  motor- 
driven,  cost  in  1914  about 
$650,  f.o.b.  at  the  works,  and 
weighed  about  7000  lb.  A  smaller  hand-operated  press  is  2  ft.  by  2 
ft.  6  in.  in  plan,  6  ft.  deep,  and  makes  a  bale  about  4  ft.  deep.  A 
press  of  this  type,  when  built  of  wood,  cost  in  1914  about  $100,  and 
when  of  steel  about  $175,  f.o.b.  at  the  works. 

Another  type  (Fig.  76)  called  the  "  Pak-tite "  is  manufactured  at 
the  Battle  Creek  Stamping  Works,  and  the  following  details  were  given 
in  June,  1917: 


Fig.  76.— The  "  Pak-tite  "  Baling  Press. 


SORTING  RUBBISH 


293 


Size  of  bale 

Weight  of  bale 

Weight  of 
machine 

Price 

14  by  18  by  30  in. 
16  by  20  by  32  in. 
20  by  24  by  34  in. 

75  to  100  lb. 
100  to  150  lb. 
200  to  300  lb. 

150  lb. 
190  lb. 
275  lb. 

$28 
35 
50 

5.  Tin  Can  Presses. — The  disposal  of  tin  cans  is  a  serious  problem, 
both  in  small  towns  and  large  cities,  and  especially  in  the  western  part 
of  the  United  States  and  in  Canada,  where  large  quantities  of  canned 
foods  are  used.  Pressing  the  cans  into  small  bales  after  cleansing 
them  is  a  good  method  of  marketing  them,  whether  or  not  the  other 
rubbish  is  sorted. 

A  satisfactory  tin  can  press,  operated  by  hydraulic  pressure,  has 
been  made  by  R.  D.  Wood  and  Company,  of  Philadelphia.  It  con- 
sists of  a  heavy  steel  receiving  hopper,  one  side  of  which  acts  as  the 
head  or  plunger  of  the  hydraulically  operated  piston.  The  hopper 
is  filled  with  cans  and  the  top  is  bolted  into  place  before  pressing 
begins.  Attached  to  the  same  base  plate  as  the  hopper  is  the  hydraulic 
cylinder,  working  under  a  maximum  pressure  of  4000  lb.  per  square 
inch.  It  is  operated  from  a  general  hydraulic  pressure  system,  or  by  a 
hand-power  pump.  The  base  plate  is  5  ft.  4  in.  long  and  2  ft.  8  in. 
wide,  and  the  height  is  3  ft.  1\  in.  The  total  weight  is  8000  lb.  The 
press  costs  approximately  $650,  exclusive  of  the  pump.  A  small  hand- 
pump  costs  about  $50.  A  high-power  baling  press  for  tins  is  made 
also  by  Logeman  Brothers,  of  Milwaukee. 

Several  tin  can  presses  are  in  use  in  England.  At  Blackpool,  the 
cost  of  labor  for  pressing  and  loading  the  baled  tins  into  trucks  was 
about  $1.75  per  ton.  At  Bradford,  the  Cleansing  Department  dis- 
posed of  about  170  tons  of  tin  cans  per  year,  at  an  average  price  of 
about  $3.75  per  ton,  f  .o.b.  at  the  works. 

Tin  cans  are  also  treated  by  de-tinning.  In  1916  de-tinning  works 
at  East  Chicago,  Ind.,  paid  $5  per  ton  for  tins  delivered  on  freight  cars. 
The  process  consists  of  a  drying  and  cleaning  of  the  tins  and  a  recovery 
of  the  metal  by  heat  and  treatment  with  chemicals,  as  described  later 
in  this  chapter. 

6.  Punching  Machines. — Tin  cans  can  be  slit  open  and  flattened 
out  in  a  so-called  "  Disrupting  Machine."  The  flat  pieces  of  tin 
punched  out  are  sold  as  roofing  washers  or  crate  corners.  A  dis- 
rupting machine  is  about  3  by  4  ft.  in  plan,  weighs  about  1000  lb., 
and  requires  about  3  h.p.  for  its  operation.  It  can  cut  up  about  8000 
cans  in  an  eight-hour  day.     The  roofing  washers  or  crate  corners  are 


294     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

punched  out  of  the  tin  cans  v/ith  a  No.  19  Bliss  press,  fitted  with  special, 
double-roll  feed,  dies,  die  blocks,  and  punch  holder.  These  machines 
are  made  by  the  Asbestos  Protected  Metal  Company,  of  Beaver  Falls, 
Pa.     Prices  quoted,  f.o.b.  works  (1914),  were  approximately  as  follows: 

Disrupting  machine $350 

Bliss  press 165 

Double-roll  feed 150 

Dies,  die  blocks,  and  punch  holder 160 

Total $825 

In  addition,  the  company,  in  1915,  charged  a  royalty  of  $2  per  ton 
of  cans  cut,  or  would  take  the  cut  and  straightened  tin  for  $15  per 
ton  delivered  at  its  works,  in  which  case  no  royalty  was  charged. 
There  is  less  waste  in  making  crate  corners  than  in  making  roofing 
washers.     Each  brought  about  3  cents  per  pound. 

7.  De-soldering  and  De-tinning. — An  apparatus  for  de-soldering, 
cleaning,  and  de-tinning  tin  cans  was  in  operation  at  the  London 
Electric  Works,  in  England,  in  1913,  and  is  described  by  Goodrich  as 
follows : 

The  tins  are  first  sorted  out  and  delivered  to  a  perforating  machine 
which  punches  the  tins  full  of  small  holes  so  that  the  liquid  used  later 
in  the  process  can  penetrate  more  thoroughly.  The  perforated  tins 
are  delivered  to  a  conveyor  which  discharges  them  into  a  perforated 
drum,  revolving  in  a  weak  solution  of  hot  caustic  soda.  This  treat- 
ment requires  about  one  hour,  and  cleans  the  tins  of  fat,  paper,  dust, 
bits  of  garbage,  and  other  foreign  material.  The  cleaned  cans  are 
discharged  into  a  second  and  similar  drum  which  revolves  in  an 
empty  tank.  In  this,  the  entrained  liquor  is  drained  out.  The  tins 
then  pass  into  a  third  drum  revolving  in  cold  water.  From  the  cold- 
water  drum  they  pass  into  a  fourth  drum,  through  which  the  waste 
gases  from  the  de-soldering  furnace  pass,  so  that  the  tins  are  thor- 
oughly dried.  The  tins  now  pass  into  a  fifth  drum,  in  which  the 
de-soldering  takes  place.  This  drum  revolves  in  an  iron  casing,  and  is 
heated  to  a  temperature  just  high  enough  to  melt  the  solder  off  the 
tins.  The  end  of  this  drum  is  open,  and  discharges  the  de-soldered 
tins  on  a  platform  under  which  is  a  hydraulic  press  by  which  they  are 
pressed  into  briquettes. 

These  briquettes  were  then  shipped  to  Essen,  Germany,  to  be 
de-tinned  by  what  is  known  as  the  "  chlorine  "  process,  as  follows: 
The  de-soldered  tin  briquettes  are  put  into  a  large  iron  cylinder  from 
which  the  air  is  exhausted.     The  cylinder  is  then  filled  with  pure 


SORTING  RUBBISH  295 

chlorine  gas  under  pressure.  Tlie  chlorine  unites  with  the  tin,  forming 
chloride  of  tin  (SnCU)  for  which  there  is  u  market  in  the  silk-dyeing 
industry.  This  treatment  frees  the  briquettes  from  all  tin,  and  pure 
steel  remains,  for  which  there  is  a  demand  at  the  neighboring  steel 
works. 

At  the  London  works  about  15,000  tons  of  tins  were  made  into 
briquettes  each  year,  and  at  Essen  upwards  of  80,000  tons  were 
annually  de-tinned. 

8,  Storage  and  Shipment. — It  is  not  generally  advisable  to  provide 
sufficient  storage  to  hold  products  over  a  period  of  low  prices.  There 
should  be  sufficient  space,  however,  to  tide  over  the  usual  irregularities 
in  freight  service.  Arrangements  should  be  made  at  the  plant  for  the 
easy  loading  of  cars,  and  as  much  by  gravity  as  possible. 

9.  Buildings  and  Grounds. — ^Well-lighted  buildings  of  brick  or 
concrete  are  desirable.  There  is  apt  to  be  considerable  dust  from  the 
handling  of  the  rubbish,  so  that  the  building  should  be  sufficiently 
high,  and  provided  with  good  ventilation.  All  the  work  should  be 
done  within  the  building.  The  plant  should  be  near  a  railroad,  in 
order  to  facilitate  shipping,  and  if  the  grounds  are  enclosed  by  a  fence 
it  will  prevent  loose  papers  from  being  blown  away. 


B.  RECOVERABLE  MATERIALS 

1.  Uses. — Efforts  to  save  and  utilize  waste  products  should  be 
encouraged  only  when  the  operation  is  economically  justified  and  is 
not  unsanitary,  and  rubbish  sorting  plants  should  be  considered  only . 
from  this  point  of  view. 

The  United  States  is  the  chief  paper-producing  country  in  the 
world.  In  1909  the  annual  output  was  estimated  to  be  4,216,708 
tons.  The  consumption  amounted  to  about  100  lb.  per  capita  per 
year.  Nearly  half  of  this  is  used  for  newspapers  and  periodicals. 
Different  substances  can  be  used  in  manufacturing  paper  stock.  Of 
these  materials,  of  course,  the  soft  woods,  such  as  spruce,  poplar, 
willow,  fir,  birch,  and  the  like,  are  best  suited,  but  waste  paper  and 
rags  are  also  readily  adapted  to  this  use.  The  pulp-making  portion 
of  the  trees  amounts  to  less  than  40%  of  the  whole  bulk,  so  that  the 
waste  is  large. 

It  is  estimated  that  one  edition  of  a  large  Sunday  newspaper 
needs  20  acres  of  wood-pulp  trees,  and  that  more  than  2000  acres 
annually  are  required  to  furnish  the  pulp  for  the  paper  of  one  large 
newspaper.  The  drain  on  the  forests  of  the  country  is  evident,  and 
the  future  economic  value  of  saving  marketable  paper  waste  should 


296     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

be  considered  carefully.     The  United  States  Department  of  Commerce 
summarizes  the  uses  of  such  waste  material  as  follows : 

"  Clean  white  cotton  or  linen  rags  and  clean  unbleached  cotton  and  linen 
rags  are  always  in  demand.  Scraps  and  small  pieces  are  just  as  suitable  as 
much  larger  pieces.  The  finest  grades  of  paper  are  made  from  such  material, 
and  the  demand  for  such  rags  is  always  steady. 

"  Cuttings  from  fancy  shirtings,  table  damasks,  toweling,  cotton  and  linen 
dress  goods,  etc.,  are  in  demand,  and  are  readily  sold. 

"  Soiled  white  rags,  both  new  and  used,  enter  into  the  composition  of  a 
very  large  variety  of  high-grade  white  and  colored  papers. 

"  Soiled  and  dirty  colored  rags,  known  to  the  mills  as  '  thirds  and  blues,' 
except  the  black  and  dark-red  colored  ones,  make  up  the  largest  amount  of 
any  single  grade  of  rags  used  in  the  manufacture  of  high-grade  book  papers  and 
medium-grade  writing  papers.  In  this  class  is  included  old  canvas,  awnings, 
sailcloth,  and  all  kinds  of  soiled  rags.  No  light-colored  rag  is  too  dirty  to  be 
used,  as  the  manufacturing  process  converts  the  dirtiest  rags  into  a  white 
mass,  whiter  than  the  original  cotton  from  which  it  was  made. 

"  Black  rags,  especially  old  black  stockings,  are  in  general  demand.  They 
are  used  in  producing  black  papers,  and  especially  for  mixing  with  lighter- 
colored  paper  stocks,  thereby  producing  the  effect  known  as  granite  papers. 

"  Woolen  rags  of  all  kinds  are  of  value;  the  higher  grades  are  returned  to 
the  woolen  mill  for  re-manufacture,  while  the  lower  grades  are  in  demand  for 
manufacture  into  roofing  papers  or  roofing  felts. 

"  Attention  is  especially  called  to  the  wide  range  of  uses  for  which  rags  and 
old  papers  of  all  kinds  are  available.  All  grades  should  be  saved,  as  the  rag 
picker  and  the  paper  maker  will  find  a  use  for  them.  The  highest  grades  will 
go  into  the  higher  grades  of  paper,  while  even  the  lowest  grades  of  this  waste 
material  can  be  made  into  box  board.  The  product  known  as  box  board  is 
an  excellent  substitute  for  wood  used  in  the  manufacture  of  wooden  boxes, 
and,  when  made  into  shipping  containers,  it  is  fully  as  strong  as,  and  very  much 
lighter  than,  the  wood  which  it  replaces.  The  saving  of  this  material,  there- 
fore, produces  a  new  and  superior  product,  and  at  the  same  time  conserves 
our  forests. 

"  White  clippings  and  shavings  from  book  papers,  bond  papers,  ledger 
papers,  and  writing  papers,  are  especially  valuable,  and  a  steady  demand  for 
such  material  is  always  found. 

"  Printers'  waste,  consisting  of  paper  damaged  in  printing,  paper  used  to 
clean  ink  from  the  inked  forms  and  rollers  of  printing  presses,  and  other  soiled 
printing  waste,  is  available  for  re-manufacture  into  many  different  grades  of 
paper. 

"  White  and  colored  writing  papers  are  suitable  for  re-manufacture  into 
many  other  grades  after  the  ink  and  coloring  matter  are  removed. 

"  Clean  wrapping  papers  of  all  kinds  are  valuable  for  re-manufacture  into 
similar  grades. 

"  Old  books,  magazines,  periodicals,  account  books,  etc.,  can  be  re-manu- 
factured into  book  papers  of  excellent  quality.     All  material  of  this  kind  that 


SORTING  RUBBISH  .       297 

is  saved  is  of  direct  benefit  to  the  forests  of  the  country,  as  magazine  and  book 
papers  arc  very  largely  made  from  wood  pulps. 

"  Clean  folded  newspaper  stock  is  suitable  for  a  number  of  paper  products, 
and  is  in  demand. 

"  All  grades  of  cardboard,  strawboard,  corrugated  box  board,  and  soiled 
wrapping  papers,  newspapers,  etc.,  are  suitable  and  in  demand  for  re-manu- 
facture into  cardboard  required  to  make  containers  for  packing  crackers, 
cereals,  and  other  food  products.  The  process  of  re-manufacture  is  such  that 
the  material  used  is  thoroughly  sterilized.  The  demand  for  clean  food  products 
requires  that  all  old  papers  should  be  saved. 

"  Burlap  bagging  and  manila  rope  are  also  of  value  in  the  production  of 
strong  wrapping  papers,  and  the  supply  of  this  material  is  always  less  than  the 
demand." 

2.  Market  Values. — We  give  below,  to  serve  as  a  general  guide  in 
forming  an  opinion,  the  market  values  that  have  prevailed  in  several 
American  cities.  The  great  war  has  altered  many  of  them.  Some 
are  now  higher,  some  lower. 

A  substantial  revenue  from  refuse  has  been  derived  in  Boston, 
New  York,  and  other  cities.  In  the  latter  city  the  privilege  of  picking 
over  the  refuse  at  the  dumps  and  transfer  stations  is  said  to  have 
netted  an  annual  income  of  more  than  1100,000.  In  Seattle  the  mixed 
refuse  is  picked  over  on  the  dumps  by  city  employees. 

Relating  to  Chicago,  we  give  the  following  figures: 

The  process  of  picking  involves  a  separation  of  the  waste  paper  into 
different  grades,  classified  by  their  market  value,  as  follows,  the  prices 
being  those  of  the  Chicago  market  in  1913: 

Mixed  or  scrap  paper $  7 .  GO  per  ton 

Newspapers 8 .  00       " 

Office  records 10.00       " 

Manila  paper 10 .  00       " 

Magazines,  journals,  and  books  with  covers  removed 12 .  00       " 

Cardboard 5.00       " 

Glass  is  separated  into  two  classes,  old  bottles  and  broken  glass, 
called  "  cuUet  "  in  the  trade.  Prices  in  Chicago  in  1913  were  as 
follows : 

Flint  or  white  cullet $  5 .  00  per  ton 

Light  green  cullet 4 .  50       " 

Amber  cullet 3 .  00       " 

Whole  bottles 0 .  30  per  dozen 

The  prices  of  some  other  waste  materials  at  Chicago  in  October, 
1916,  were  as  follows: 


298     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Scrap  iron :  Per  net  ton 

No.  1  cast  scrap $12.25  to  $12.75 

Stove  plate  and  light  cast  scrap 10 .  75  to    11 .  00 

Grate  bars 10.25  to    10.50 

Brake  shoes 10.00  to    10.50 

RaUroad  maUeable 12.00  to    12.50 

Agricultural  malleable 11 .  00  to    11 .  50 

Unassorted About  8 .  00 

Old  metals :  Cents  per  lb. 

Heavy  wire 22 .  50 

Heavy  copper 22 .  50 

Copper  bottoms 20 .  00 

Copper  clip 21 .  00 

Red  brass 19 .  00 

Yellow  brass,  heavy 14 .  50 

Yellow  brass,  borings 14 .  00 

Red  brass,  borings 16 .  50 

Lead  pipe 5 .  75 

Tea  lead.  . 5.00 

Tin  foil 33 .  00 

Block-tin  pipe 35 .  00 

Pewter  No.  1 28.00 

Scrap  zinc 7 .  00 

Tin  cans  when  reasonably  bright 3 .  00 

Old  rags :  Cents  per  lb. 

Unassorted About  0 .  75 

No.  1  whites 4.40  to  4.70 

No.  2  whites 3.60  to  3.80 

Thirds  and  blues 2.80  to  3.00 

Straight  garments 1.80  to  2.00 

Hard-back  carpets 1 .  60  to  1 .  90 

Soft-back  carpets 2.30  to  2.60 

Old  rubber :  Cents  per  lb. 

Boots  and  shoes 8 .  75  to  9 

Trimmed  arctics 6 .  75  to  7 

Auto  tires 4.5 

Bicycle  tires 4  to  4 . 5 

Solid  tires 5.25 

No  1  inner  tubes 24 

Mixed  white  scrap 8  to  8 . 5 

Mixed  red  scrap 6. 5  to  7 

Mixed  black  scrap 3 .  25 

Garden  hose 1 .  25  to  1 . 5 

Cotton  fire  hose *. 2 


SORTING  RUBBISH 


299 


The  current   prices  of  some   waste  materials    in   Chicago,    as  of 
August,  1919,  were  as  follows: 


Old  metals:  Cents  per  lb. 

Tea  lead 3 

Tin  pipe 55 

Tin  foU 35  to  40 

Pewter 42 

Zinc 5 

Mixed  rags,  car  load  lots .  .  4 


Scrap  iron :  Per  net  ton 

No.  1  cast $22 

Stove  plate 20 

Malleable 18 

Old  metals :  Cents  per  lb. 

Heavy   wire,    copper   clips 

and  heavy  copper 18 

Red  brass 17 

Red  borings 15 

Yellow  brass 11 

Yellow  borings 11 

Lead  pipe 5 

The  selling  prices  of  rubbish    materials  in  the  Chicago    market, 
from  quotations  dated  November  7,  1919,  were  as  follows: 


Scrap  rubber: 

Boots  and  shoes 

Auto  and  bicycle  tires. 
Tubes  (mixed) 


7 

3 

10 


Copper $0. 16  per  lb. 

Light  copper 0 .  15      " 

Brass,  red 0.16 

Brass,  heavy  yellow.  0 .  10§ 
Brass,  lighter  yellow.  0 .  09 
Brass,  yellow  borings  0 .  09 

Brass,  red 0 .  14 

Lead 0.05i 

Zinc 0.05 

Mixed  iron 12 .  00  per  ton 


Mixed  rags $0.03  per  lb. 

Bagging 0.02      " 

Newspapers 0.70  per  100  lb. 

Mixed  paper 0.60       " 

Auto  tires 0.03  per  lb. 

Auto  tubes 0.09      " 

Mixed    boots    and 

shoes 0.04      " 

Arctic  shoes  (cloth 

covered) 0.04      " 


C.  RESULTS  IN  PRACTICE 

As  the  practice  of  sorting  in  specially  built  plants  has  been  fairly 
well  developed  in  some  of  our  cities,  we  describe  a  few  of  them  below. 

1.  New  York  City. — The  first  rubbish  sorting  plant  in  the  United 
States  was  built  by  Col.  Waring,  for  New  York  City,  on  an  experimental 
basis,  and  was  operated  from  January  1,  1898,  to  August  11,  1900, 
and  then  abandoned.  The  rubbish  was  collected  separately  from  a 
population  estimated  to  be  about  116,000,  within  the  territory 
bounded  by  Sixth  and  Seventh  Streets  on  the  south,  the  Bowery  and 
Fifth  Avenue  on  the  west.  Twenty-second  Street  on  the  north,  and  the 
East  River  on  the  east.  The  area  contained  a  number  of  large  depart- 
ment stores.  The  plant  was  built  by  the  City  and  operated  by  a 
contractor,  with  the  results  shown  in  Table  87.  The  quantity  of 
rubbish  delivered  ranged  from  40  to  50  loads  a  day. 


300     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Table  87. — Results  of  Operat.on  of  Experimental  Rubbish  Sorting 
Plant,  New  York  City 


Year 

Quantity  of  Rubbish 

Payments  to  City  by 
contractob 

Total, 
in  tons 

Pounds  per 
capita  per  year 

Totals 

Per  ton 

1898 

1899 

1900  (7  months) 

6710 

5660 
3300 

116 

98 
98 

$4141.00 
3109.00 
3680.00 

$0,017 
0.549 
1.10 

Of  the  total  quantity  of  rubbish,  it  was  found  that  37%  was  sorted 
and  sold,  about  60%  of  the  remainder  was  burned  up,  yielding  40% 
as  ash.  The  material  sorted  out  had  the  following  composition,  by 
weight : 

Percentage 
Material  by  weight 

Paper,  six  grades 74 . 5 

Rags,  clothing,  bagging,  and  twine 12.2 

Carpets,  four  grades 3.3 

Bottles,  common  and  proprietory 2.5 

Metals :  Iron,  brass,  lead,  and  zinc 2.1 

Tins 1.4 

Leather:  Shoes  and  scrap 1.9 

Rubber :  Shoes,  hose,  and  mats 0.2 

Whole  barrels 1.4 

Miscellaneous 0.5 

Total 100.0 


In  1902  another  sorting  plant,  with  incinerator,  was  built  at 
Forty-seventh  Street  and  the  Hudson  River.  It  had  a  capacity  of 
about  50  tons  per  twenty-four  hours,  and  cost  $20,000,  exclusive  of  the 
pier  on  which  it  was  built.  It  consisted  of  a  conveyor  which  passed 
through  two  rows  of  storage  bins  (Fig.  77)  and  discharged  into  the 
top-fed  hopper  of  the  furnace  (Fig.  78).  The  materials  were  sorted 
into  the  bins,  and  the  papers  baled  in  hand-presses.  A  test  of  the 
plant  was  made  on  October  7,  1904,  and  Table  88  is  a  record  of  the 
materials  sorted  out.  The  quantity  picked  out  was  48.8%  of  the  total 
by  weight,  and  63.5%  by  volume.  The  duration  of  the  weighing  and 
measuring  test  was  4.5  hours. 


SORTING  RUBBISH 


301 


Fig.  77. — Conveyor,  and  Men  Sorting  out  Material,  New  York. 

(From  "The  Disposal  of  Municipal  Waste,"  by  H.  de  B.  Parsons). 


Fig.  78. — -Conveyor  Discharging  into  Furnace,  New  York. 

(From  "The  Disposal  of  Municipal  Waste,"  by  H.  de  B.  Parsons.) 


302     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


A  third  rubbish  sorting  plant,  with  incinerator,  was  built  in  1905 
in  Delancey  Street,  under  the  west  approach  of  the  Williamsburg 
Bridge.  The  plant  comprised  a  rubbish  sorting  equipment,  two 
furnaces  for  burning  the  residual  rubbish,  two  200-h.p.  boilers,  and 
an  electric  power  plant,  containing  one  50-h.p.  and  two  100-h.p. 
units.  The  cost  of  the  rubbish  sorting  and  incinerating  plant  was 
$34,139,  and  of  the  electric  power  plant  149,391. 

Table   88. — Record    op    Quantities    of   Rubbish   Sorted 
AT  47th  Street  Plant,  New  York  City,  October  7,  1904 


Material  sorted 


Cubic  yards 


Pounds 


Newspaper  i 

Manila  paper 

Pasteboard 

Mixed  paper 

Mixed  paper  and  rags 

Book^, 

Iron  and  tins 

Bottles 

Rags 

BaggiQg 

Carpets , 

Shoes , 

Hats , 

Rope , 

Barrels 

Boxes , 

Total' 


98.0 
54.5 

5,184 
1,250 

[05.0 
53.0 

4,909 
2,613 

6.0 

625 

0.5 

259 

16.0 

1,942 

0.5 

363 

6.5 
1.0 

1,007 
184 

1.5 

274 

0.5 

180 

0.5 

17 

0.5 

111 

21.0 
11.0 

2,826 
1,400 

376.0 


23,144 


Two  tests,  made  in  December,  1905,  lasting  5.5  hours  each, 
gave  the  results  shown  in  Table  89. 

The  plant  actually  handled  about  1050  cu.  yd.  of  rubbish  a  day, 
amounting  to  about  one-fifth  of  the  total  daily  output  of  the  Boroughs 
of  Manhattan  and  The  Bronx. 

A  fourth  rubbish  sorting  plant  in  the  metropolitan  area  has  been 
operated  in  East  New  York,  a  section  of  Brooklyn,  by  the  American 
Railway  Traffic  Company,  under  a  contract  with  Brooklyn.  The 
plant  is  operated  in  connection  with  an  ash  dump.  The  building  is 
100  by  75  ft.  in  plan,  is  two  stories  high,  and  is  of  wood  covered  with 
corrugated  iron.  A  part  of  the  upper  floor  is  used  for  unloading  ash 
wagons  into  bins  which  discharge  into  trolley  cars.  Another  part 
contains  a  short  belt  conveyor  for  rubbish  sorting,  and  still  another 


SORTING  RUBBISH 


303 


contains  the  storage  bins.     The  plant  also  has  an  incinerator.     The 
ashes  are  run  out  by  trolley  to  low  land  and  used  for  filling. 

Of  these  four  New  York  plants,  only  the  East  New  York  station 
was  in  operation  in  1915. 

Table  89. — Results  of  Two  Sorting  Tests  at  Delancet  Street  Plant, 

New  York  City 


Items 


Quantities  Sokted 


First  test 


Second  test 


Condition  of  rubbish 

Total  weight  of  rubbish,  in  pounds 

Rubbish  sorted  out  for  sale,  in  pounds: 

Paper 

Rags 

Cans 

Percentage  of  rubbish  sorted  out,  by  weight 


Dry 
31,193 

6,876 

1,800 

250 

28.6 


Wet 
21,175 

6,435 
610 
200 
34.2 


In  addition  to  the  sorting  plants,  New  York  City  has  for  many 
years  sold  the  privilege  of  picking  over  the  garbage  and  rubbish,  at 
the  dumps  and  scow  transfer  stations  along  the  water  front,  for  which 
contractors  have  paid  approximately  $1920  per  week.  The  esti- 
mated quantity  was  1800  tons  per  week,  from  which  about  35%  was 
picked  out  and  sold.  The  value  of  the  rubbish  to  the  city  was  thus 
about  $1.06  per  ton. 

2.  Buffalo,  N.  Y. — A  rubbish-sorting  plant  was  built  by  the 
Buffalo  Sanitary  Company  in  1905,  and  was  purchased  by  the  City 
in  1907.  The  building  is  of  brick,  200  ft.  long,  50  ft.  wide,  and  25  ft. 
high  to  the  eaves,  with  a  gable  roof  and  monitor.  It  is  divided  into 
three  compartments,  containing,  respectively,  the  rubbish-sorting 
plant,  the  incinerator,  and  the  sewage  pumps.  The  plant  handles  an 
average  of  50  tons  per  day,  and  cost  the  city  $65,000,  exclusive  of 
the  sewage  pumping  machinery,  but  including  one  of  the  incinerators. 

The  rubbish-sorting  plant  occupies  half  the  building,  namely,  an 
area  100  ft.  by  50  ft.,  in  which  there  is  room  for  handling  about  500 
cu.  yd.  of  rubbish  per  day.  The  delivery  is  made  in  large  wagons, 
holding  from  10  to  15  cu.  yd.,  each  wagon  being  fitted  with  a  removable 
false  bottom  of  wire  screen.  The  wagons  pass  in  at  one  end  of  the 
building  on  the  ground  floor  through  a  large  portal.  The  rubbish  is 
dumped  on  the  floor  by  lifting  the  false  bottom  with  an  overhead 
traveling  pulley.  Two  laborers  rake  the  rubbish  on  the  belt  conveyor, 
which  begins  on  the  first-floor  level  and  rises  at  an  angle  of  about  25° 


304    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


through  the  sorting  room  to  above  the  furnace,  carrying  the  rubbish 
with  it  in  a  thin  layer. 

The  length  of  the  sorting  platform  is  about  60  ft.  On  each  side 
of  the  conveyor  are  ten  pickers,  each  one  sorting  out  a  special  article 
and  depositing  it  in  a  bottom-dumping  hopper,  eight  of  which  are  set 
in  a  row  on  each  side  of  the  conveyor.  Below  some  of  the  hoppers 
are  the  baling  presses,  hydraulically  operated,  in  which  the  various 
kinds  of  papers  and  rags  are  baled  ready  for  shipment. 

In  a  small  room  below  the  sorting  floor  are  the  machines  for  dis- 
rupting tin  cans,  rolling  them  out  into  sheets,  and  punching  out  roofing 
washers.  All  bottles  are  sorted  and  sold  as  either  mixed,  sorted,  or  as 
broken  glass. 

After  the  conveyor  passes  through  the  sorting  room,  it  discharges 
the  waste  rubbish  on  the  floor  above  the  furnace.  There  are  two  40- 
ton  incinerators,  each  having  three  grates,  a  combustion  chamber, 
boiler,  air  heater,  and  forced-draft  apparatus.  One  of  the  furnaces 
also  burns  some  garbage.  The  steam  generated  is  used  to  operate 
and  light  the  plant,  and  to  operate  the  sewage  pumps.  A  coal-fired, 
75-h.p.  boiler  is  used  as  an  auxiliary.  In  the  annual  financial  sum- 
maries, the  plant  is  credited  with  generating  steam  at  a  cost  of  70 
cents  per  hour.  The  operating  results,  from  May  20,  1907,  to  June  30, 
1917,  inclusive,  are  shown  in  Table  90.  One  year's  record  of  the 
materials  sorted  out  is  given  in  Table  91. 

Table  90. — Annual  Costs  of  Buffalo  Rubbish  Sorting  Plant, 
Exclusive  of  Fixed  Charges 


Revenue 

Year 

ending 

June 

30th 

Annual 
costs 

Balance  ^ 

Sale  of 
recovered 
material 

Sale  of 
steam 

Total 
return 

19082 

129,136.15 

$32,307.99 

$3,552.85 

$35,860.84 

$6,724.69 

1909 

28,985.58 

28,635.58 

2,629.73 

31,265.31 

2,279.73 

1910 

32,924.60 

36,373.34 

2,802.63 

39,175.97 

6,251.37 

1911 

38,622.43 

37,162.43 

3,908.62 

41,071.05 

2,448.62 

1912 

33,516.19 

32,350.61 

4,074.88 

36,425.49 

2,909.30 

1913 

36,683.92 

41,358.29 

4,565.58 

45,923.87 

9,239.95 

1914 

48,204.76 

55,494.24 

4,480.88 

59,975.12 

11,770.36 

1915 

51,890.72 

55,356.14 

4,467.40 

59,823 . 54 

7,932.82 

1916 

61,013.21 

55,117.09 

4,235.18 

59,352.27 

-1,660.94 

1917 

52,430.46 

56,917.91 

3,874.15 

60,792.06 

8,361.60 

1  If  the  fixed  charges  are  deducted    from  the  balance  for  each  year,  there  would  be, 
in  general,  a  loss. 

2  Plant  in  operation  from  May  20,  1907,  to  June  30,  1908. 


SORTING  RUBBISH 


305 


Table   91. — Materials  Recovered   from   Refuse   in   Buffalo,    N.    Y., 
FROM  July  1,  1917,  to  June  30,  1918 

(From  Report  of  the  Refuse  Utilization  Plant,  Buffalo) 

Sales 

6,730       bales  newspapers 2,939,231  lb. 

15,987       bales  mixed  papers 6,785,680 

1,803       bales  manila  paper 811,682 

201       bags  rags 103,800 

5       bags  flour  bags 2,015 

5       bags  of  charcoal  bags 1,490 

74       cars  of  tins 1,290,078 

Broken  glass 204,440 

275,077       mixed  bottles 

144,846       beer  bottles 

138       crates,  beer,  wood 

38       crates,  beer,  iron 

712.57  tons  garbage  destroyed.    (Estimated  at  $1.00  per  ton) 


8,000 
30 


bales,  old  shoes . . 
Old  metalware .  . 
Old  graniteware . 
Old  scrap  iron . . . 
old  electric  bulbs . 

Wood  ashes 

jugs 

Fire  loss 

Pay-roll  refund. . 


63,963  lb. 
13,440  " 
13,980  " 
15,885  " 


24,840  lb. 


Steam   furnished  to   Hamburg   Pumping   Station,    4,115^ 
hours  at  $2.08 


Charges 

Pay-roll $48,689.58 

Maintenance  and  repairs 5,711 .  78 

Interest 1,440.00 


Net  revenue . 


$10,287.38 

20,357.28 

4,464 .  27 

1,927.62 

30.23 

22.35 

4,059.61 

630.44 

1,836.50 

1,189.83 

13.15 

7.15 

712.57 

267.46 

31.50 

32.7? 

122 . 23 

32.00 

62.10 

0.60 

1,670.00 

2.75 

$47,759.79 

8,560.24 

$56,320.03 


$55,841.36 


$478.67 


Although  Table  91  shows  an  apparent  net  revenue  of  $478.67 
for  the  fiscal  year,  1917-1918,  there  are  certain  charges,  not  included, 
which  indicate  that  the  works  were  actually  run  at  a  loss.  For 
instance,  Mr.  George  H.  Norton,  City  Engineer,  states  that  the 
salary  of  the  superintendent,  about  $1800,  is  not  included  in  the  costs, 
but  that  one-third  of  his  time  should  be  charged  against  the  sewage 


306     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

pumping  station.  He  also  states  that  the  cost  of  hauling  cinders 
from  the  plant  (about  $2000  per  year)  is  not  included,  and  that  no 
charge  for  overhead  or  plant  depreciation  is  shown,  excepting  interest 
on  outstanding  bonds  and  insurance.  He  says,  however,  that  the 
costs  of  maintenance  and  repairs  have  actually  included  much  of 
real  betterment  to  the  plant. 

3.  Rochester,  N.  Y. — A  combined  rubbish  sorting  and  incinerator 
plant  was  built  in  Rochester  in  1912  by  the  Decarie  Incinerator  Com- 
pany. The  plant  has  a  capacity  of  60  tons  per  twenty-four  hours,  and 
cost  approximately  $100,000.  The  cost  for  the  year  1913,  exclusive 
of  fixed  charges,  is  given  below: 

Tons  of  refuse  sorted 4,500 

Cost  of  operation $23,000. 00 

Revenue  from  salable  refuse 15,000.00 

Net  loss  of  operation 8,000 .  00 

Loss  per  ton  sorted 1 .  77 

The  arrangement  is  similar  to  that  of  the  Buffalo  plant.  The 
wagons  drive  into  the  building  and  dump  into  receiving  hoppers 
which  have  sides  sloping  down  toward  a  conveyor  at  the  center. 
The  conveyor  rises  to  the  sorting  floor,  where  the  salable  articles  are 
sorted  out  into  bins,  the  remainder  being  delivered  by  the  conveyor 
into  the  charging  hoppers  of  two  furnaces.  Below  the  storage  bins 
are  the  baling  presses,  driven  by  electric  motors. 

During  1913,  4500  tons  of  rubbish  were  handled.  The  operating 
force  consisted  of  two  engineers,  five  firemen,  and  from  sixteen  to 
twenty  sorters.  The  sorters  were  paid  25  cents  per  hour,  and  the 
engineers  1100  per  month.  The  furnaces  were  operated  continuously 
during  the  winter,  but  only  during  daytime  in  summer. 

4.  Miscellaneous. — In  Washington,  D.  C,  rubbish  is  disposed  of 
partly  by  sorting  and  selling,  and  partly  by  burning.  The  work  is 
done  by  contract. 

Columbus,  Ohio,  has  recently  erected  a  municipal  rubbish  sorting 
and  incinerating  plant,  from  which  the  revenue  for  1917  and  1918 
was  as  follows: 

1917  1918 

Bottles $  365.21  $  116.33 

Paper 1859.06  1876.06 

Iron 145.53  68.19 

Rags 579.94  239.45 

Cans 452.59  1600.31 

Metal 114.39  5.50 

Miscellaneous 5 .  03  28 .  26 

Totals $3521.75  $3924.10 


SORTING  RUBBISH  307 

Boston  and  Pittsburgh  also  have  sorting  plants. 

The  U.  S.  Government,  in  the  operation  of  the  cantonments  built 
during  the  late  war,  paid  considerable  attention  to  the  utilization  of 
camp  refuse.  The  construction  of  incinerators  for  the  temporary 
camps  would  have  been  both  slow  and  expensive.  It  was  therefore 
decided  to  keep  the  different  kinds  of  refuse  separated,  i.e.,  to  sort 
them,  and  dispose  of  each  as  found  best  under  the  local  conditions.* 
"  Much  confusion  existed  during  the  early  days  of  the  war,"  which 
was  reflected  in  the  first  contracts  awarded  for  refuse  disposal,  and 
many  complaints  of  wastefulness  were  made  to  the  Food  Adminis- 
tration. Later,  contracts  were  accordingly  arranged  on  the  conser- 
vancy program  of  the  Quartermaster's  Corps  "  to  bring  about  reduc- 
tion in  mess  waste."  "  Prior  to  July  1,  1918,  the  average  mess  waste 
for  all  camps  in  the  United  States  was  nearly  2  lb.  per  man  per  day. 
This  is  far  in  excess  of  the  wastes  reported  from  municipalities,  and 
even  exceeds  the  wastage  per  person  of  first-class  hotels."  "  After 
the  above  date,  when  new  contracts  took  effect,  the  wastage  was 
reduced  to  about  f  lb.  per  man  per  day."  This  was  brought  about  by 
"  better  discipline,  definite  regulations,  better  administration  of  the 
messes  through  educational  literature,  and  primarily  through  the 
training  of  officers,  cooks,  and  bakers  in  the  army  schools."  The 
sorting  that  was  decided  on  by  the  Quartermaster's  Corps  was  a 
separation  into  four  parts:  1,  bread,  to  conserve  wheat;  2,  bones; 
3,  meat,  fats,  etc.,  for  glycerine  production  if  necessary;  and  4,  other 
garbage.  Before  a  specific  utilization  as  contemplated  should  be 
effected,  the  garbage  was  to  be  fed  to  hogs. 

In  Europe  the  principal  plants  have  been  in  London,  Bradford, 
Amsterdam,  Munich,  Vienna,  and  Buda  Pest.  Toward  the  end  of 
tiie  War  Birmingham  started  a  sorting  plant  (Chapter  III). 

The  most  developed  case  of  sorting  refuse  in  Europe  is  at  Puch- 
heim,  a  suburb  of  Munich,  where  the  refuse  from  a  population  of 
more  than  600,000  is  picked  over  and  finally  disposed  of.  First,  the 
finer  materials  and  dust  are  sifted  out  on  a  moving  and  vibrating 
belt,  and  the  bulky  salable  articles  are  picked  out.  In  the  adjoining 
room  about  40  women  stand  on  each  side  of  the  belt,  each  one  picking 
out  a  designated  material  and  throwing  it  into  a  designated  wire 
basket.  The  substances  thus  removed  are  chiefly:  Paper,  white  and 
green  glass,  rags,  leather,  bones,  tinned  cans,  iron,  brass,  copper,  tin, 
etc.  The  bones  are  treated  with  benzine,  and,  on  the  premises,  are 
converted  into  grease,  glue,  bone  meal,  or  charcoal.  Garbage  is 
cleaned,  sterilized,  and  fed  to  hogs  in  an  adjoining  building.  Paper  is 
freed  from  dust,  pressed  into  bales,  and  utilized  for  the  manufacture 

*  Municipal  Journal  and  Public  Works,  April  26  and  May  3,  1919. 


308    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

of  pasteboard.  Wood  is  burned  under  the  boilers.  Bottles  are 
cleaned,  disinfected,  and  sold.  Tinned  cans  are  sold  as  iron.  No 
one  enters  the  works  until  after  donning  working  clothes,  nor  leaves 
them  until  after  a  good  wash  or  bath.  The  working  rooms  are  washed 
twice  a  day  with  dilute  carbolic  acid.  It  is  reported  by  De  Fodor 
that  this  very  effective  sorting  contains  the  germ  of  faulty  economics, 
in  the  fact  that  the  total  revenue  hardly  covers  three-quarters  of  the 
necessary  expenditure. 

The  data  for  Amsterdam  for  1905  are:  Population,  650,000; 
refuse  per  annum,  240,000  cu.  m.,  weighing  100,000,000  kg.,  as  follows: 

Kilograms 

Sheet  iron 310,000 

Tinned  plate 231,750 

Tin  and  white  metal 820 

Zinc 15,010 

Copper 19,050 

Lead 380 

Enameled  iron 51,630 

Cast  iron 96,540 

Green  glass 106,750 

White  glass 80,000 

Black  glass 192,900 

Bones 62,950 

Leather 95,540 

Rags 563,320 

Paper 1,996,800 

Total  quantity  picked  out 3,823,440  kg. 

D.  SANITARY  FEATURES 

Rubbish  sorting  is  unfavorably  criticized  because  it  requires  the 
handling  of  miscellaneous,  dirty — and  possibly  infected — materials 
from  hospitals  and  sick  rooms;  and  because  the  picked  out  materials 
are  returned  to  circulation  and  use  without  much  cleansing. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  it  is  impracticable  to  remove  waste 
materials  without  manual  contact.  Therefore  such  material,  when 
suspected  of  being  dangerous  or  infectious,  should  be  condemned  by 
the  Health  Department  and  sterilized  or  burned  at  once  on  the  prem- 
ises or  in  incinerators,  and  should  not  pass  over  the  picking  platforms. 
The  processes  by  which  the  rubbish  is  manufactured  into  articles  for 
the  market,  frequently,  but  not  always,  sterilize  it. 

The  effect  of  sorting  on  the  operators  at  the  plant  is  commented 
on  by  George  H.  Norton,  Deputy  Engineer  Commissioner  at  Buffalo, 
as  follows: 


SORTING  RUBBISH 


309 


"  This  (the  sorting)  is  done  without  nuisance  and  without  material  com- 
plaints of  injurious  effects  upon  the  health  of  those  engaged  in  this  work. 
The  subject  of  effect  upon  health  may  well  be  the  subject  of  further  detailed 
investigation." 

Comment,  by  the  Ohio  State  Board  of  Health,  in  "  Health  Hazards 
in  Junk  Sorting,"  is  as  follows: 

"  Our  investigations  covered  25  establishments  (exclusive  of  paper  man- 
ufacturers) located  in  five  cities,  employing  wage-earners  divided  as  follows: 


Process 

Number  of 
establish- 
ments 

Males 

Females 

Total 

Paper  and  rag  sorting 

Refining  metals 

Waste,  manufactiiring 

20 
4 
1 

203 
33 

158 

71 
10 

274 

33 

168 

25 

394 

81 

475 

"  The  exposure  to  dust  was  a  bad  hazard  in  17  places,  its  source  being  the 
rags,  paper,  and  metals  handled.  Quarters  were  very  dirty  and  disordered  in 
19  places,  while  a  fourth  of  the  places  were  practically  improtected  from  the 
weather.  The  light  was  very  poor  where  the  workers  were  engaged  in  8 
places.  Confined  quarters  giving  poor  opportunity  for  ventilation  consti- 
tuted a  bad  hazard  in  13  places,  and  fairly  so  in  3  more.  Heat  was  a  bad 
hazard  in  one  place  employing  3  men.  Chilling  from  winter  cold  was  a  hazard 
to  the  workers  in  at  least  one-half  of  the  places.  In  one  place,  employing  17 
men  and  women,  the  only  heat  was  from  unhooded  salamanders,  the  gas  from 
which  filled  the  quarters.  Fatigue  was  a  considerable  hazard  in  at  least  3 
places  employing  girls,  due  to  the  absence  of  seats,  piece  work,  faulty  postures, 
and  the  like. 

"  The  general  appearance  of  workers  was  fair  to  good  in  10  of  the  plants 
(none,  however,  engaged  in  handling  metals).  The  workers,  as  a  rule,  were 
very  reticent  about  making  complaints,  but  the  ill  effects  of  dust,  unsanitary 
quarters,  and  long  hours,  were  complained  of  by  them.  Our  investigators 
discovered  4  cases  of  lead  poisoning  in  2  melting  plants,  2  cases  of  tubercu- 
losis, and  reported  that  several  cases  of  lockjaw  had  come  from  one  of  the 
large  plants." 

There  have  been  no  specific  and  serious  complaints  against  rubbish 
sorting  on  health  grounds,  in  New  York  City  or  elsewhere,  so  far  as 
the  authors  have  been  able  to  ascertain.  In  1916  the  foregoing  sug- 
gestion of  Mr.  Norton  summed  up  the  situation  fairly  well.  It  might 
be  well,  however,  to  add  the  caution,  that,  wherever  sorting  is  found 
profitable,  although  rubbish  from  sick  rooms  may  be  collected  sep- 
arately and  burned,  it  would  be  advisable  to  disinfect  all  rubbish 
before  it  is  picked  over  or  sorted,  and  before  it  leaves  the  works. 


310    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

E.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  recovery  of  waste  materials  is  justified  only  when  the  opera- 
tion is  entirely  sanitary,  and  when,  after  previous  disinfection,  it 
shows  a  sufficient  margin  of  profit.  It  is  certainly  not  advisable  to  sort 
rubbish  at  a  net  financial  loss,  in  preference  to  other  and  simpler 
methods  of  disposal.  Present  available  cost  records  indicate  that  the 
earnings  from  the  sale  of  sorted  rubbish,  when  including  fixed  charges, 
generally  exceed  only  slightly  the  cost  of  operation.  A  small  favor- 
able balance  is  sometimes  secured,  also,  by  burning  all  the  rubbish,  if 
some  use  can  be  made  of  the  resulting  steam  power.  Considering 
both  financial  and  sanitary  aspects,  it  becomes  questionable  whether 
sorting  is  often  advisable.  Only  a  study  of  each  local  condition  can 
determine  the  correct  cost  and  the  relative  sanitary  values  of  sorting 
and  burning.  In  all  cases,  picking  over  and  sorting  rubbish  should 
be  done  only  by  persons  regularly  licensed  by  the  city  or  town,  so  as 
to  control  the  work  and,  as  much  as  possible,  prevent  unsanitary 
results. 

A  net  financial  profit  from  sorting  rubbish  must  be  balanced  and 
justified  to  some  extent  by  the  kind  of  labor  necessary  to  yield  this 
profit.  Unless  the  sacrifice  due  to  such  disagreeable  conditions  fully 
justifies  the  establishment  of  sorting  stations  for  securing  the  small 
revenue,  a  progressive  and  well-to-do  community  should  not  engage 
in  this  business.  The  rag-picking  contingent,  chiefly  in  southern 
Europe,  is  a  remnant  of  the  Middle  Ages,  made  up  from  the  lowest 
classes,  having  low  intelligence  and  morals,  and  a  high  death  rate. 
The  small  profit  and  unpleasant  occupation  discourage  a  rising  to 
higher  levels  in  community  life. 

Exception,  however,  can  be  justly  made  here  and  there  of  separate 
ash  dumps  where  much  unburned  coal  can  be  picked  out,  and  also 
of  some  rubbish  dumps,  where  inoffensive  materials  may  be  gathered 
by  licensed  pickers  without  much  objection. 

In  Europe  sorting  of  mixed  refuse  is  not  generally  favored,  for 
sanitary  reasons,  and  in  many  cities  its  abandonment  has  been  rec- 
ommended. De  Fodor,  the  Hungarian  author  of  an  able  work  on 
"  Electricity  from  Refuse  "  (1911),  says: 

"  In  our  century  and  in  the  name  of  hygiene  and  humanity,  there  should 
no  longer  be  people,  who,  to  earn  their  living,  are  compelled  by  a  municipality 
to  pick  over  its  refuse." 

Dr.  Thiesing,  of  the  Berlin  Experiment  Station,  says,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  each  city  should  decide  the  question  on  its  own  basis, 
but  that  in  every  case  all  picked-over  material  should  be  disinfected 
before  it  leaves  the  works. 


CHAPTER   X 
INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 

The  disposal  of  refuse  by  incineration  or  burning  is  practiced 
extensively,  and  in  several  ways.  It  has  been  used  for  almost  all 
kinds  of  refuse,  either  separately  or  combined.  The  earliest  and  sim- 
plest methods  are  the  burning  of  garbage  in  kitchen  stoves  or  house 
furnaces,  and  the  burning  of  rubbish  on  a  pile  in  the  back  yard. 
Manure  has  sometimes  been  burned  under  steam  boilers. 

Municipal  refuse  incineration,  sometimes  called  destruction  or 
cremation,  in  specially  designed  furnaces,  originated  in  England, 
where  it  was  introduced  successfully  for  the  incineration  of  mixed 
refuse,  in  1874  at  Nottingham,  by  Alfred  Fryer,  a  contractor.  Two 
years  later,  a  somewhat  improved  refuse  furnace  was  built  by  him  at 
Manchester.  It  consisted  of  a  series  of  cells  charged  through  hoppers 
at  the  top  and  fitted  with  grates  sloping  toward  the  front.  These  early 
plants  were  sufficiently  successful  to  cause  a  further  development  of 
this  method  of  disposal,  so  that  now  it  is  practically  the  only  one  used 
on  a  large  scale  in  England. 

On  the  continent,  the  nature  of  the  refuse  and  the  conditions  of 
labor  and  population  were  sufficiently  similar  to  those  in  England,  so 
in  time  the  incineration  of  mixed  refuse  came  into  use  also  in  France 
and  Germany,  and  very  much  along  the  lines  followed  in  England. 
The  development  there,  however,  has  not  been  so  extensive  as  in  Great 
Britain,  where  there  are  now  more  than  200  plants.  The  first  large 
one  in  Germany,  designed  by  F.  Andreas  Meyer,  City  Engineer, 
was  built  at  Hamburg  in  1896.  It  was  patterned  chiefly  after  the 
English  Horsfall  furnace,  but  forced  draft  by  fans  with  pre-heated 
air  was  preferred  to  the  steam  jet  advocated  by  Horsfall.  Since  this 
first  plant  was  built,  German  engineers  have  developed  new  designs, 
holding  to  the  English  original  in  principle,  but  changing  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  grates,  the  method  of  feeding,  and  other  details. 

The  evolution  of  incineration  in  America  has  been  somewhat  along 
other  lines,  due  to  different  local  conditions,  especially  the  character 
of  the  refuse.  In  American  cities  the  population  has  spread  more 
thinly  over  larger  areas,  increasing  the  hauls  and  affording  more 

311 


312    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

opportunity  than  in  Europe  for  the  disposal  of  ashes  and  rubbish  by 
dumping.  Disposal  of  garbage  by  dumping,  however,  caused  nuisances, 
so  that  a  method  of  disposal  of  this  material  alone — the  refuse  which 
most  quickly  produces  a  nuisance — became  desirable. 

The  early  furnaces  in  America,  therefore,  were  intended  largely 
for  the  burning  of  garbage;  those  in  Europe  had  been  designed  to 
burn  mixed  refuse.  The  former  practice  requires  the  addition  of  fuel, 
such  as  coal,  oil,  or  gas.  The  latter  practice,  because  mixed  refuse 
contains  sufficient  combustible  to  burn  of  itself  at  a  high  temperature, 
does  not  need  additional  fuel. 

American  furnaces  also  required  less  labor  than  those  of  the 
English  type,  but  the  cost  of  fuel  increased  the  total  expense.  In  the 
operation,  therefore,  there  was  always  a  temptation  to  lower  the  cost  by 
reducing  the  quantity  of  fuel  added.  The  temperature  of  combustion 
was  thereby  lowered,  and  nuisances  frequently  resulted.  The  hot 
gases  of  combustion  from  English  furnaces  have  been  used  success- 
fully for  steam  raising  and  power  production.  There  is  thus  intro- 
duced an  economic  reason  for  the  maintenance  of  high  temperature, 
which  is  also  necessary  for  the  complete  destruction  of  organic  matter. 
The  two  kinds  of  furnaces  have  been  spoken  of,  therefore,  as  the 
"  high-temperature  "  and  "  low-temperature  "  types. 

The  first  garbage  furnace  in  the  United  States  was  designed  by 
Lieut.  H.  J.  Reilly  for  the  United  States  Government,  and  was  erected 
on  Governors  Island,  New  York  Harbor,  in  1885.  The  first  municipal 
plant  was  built  during  the  same  year  in  Allegheny  City,  Pa.,  by  the 
Rider  Company.  Both  plants  were  designed  to  burn  garbage  with 
coal.  The  first  furnace  type  that  came  into  extensive  use  was  built 
in  Des  Moines,  la.,  in  1887,  by  Andrew  Engle.  It  had  a  large  hori- 
zontal grate  on  which  the  garbage  was  thrown  from  above  to  be  first 
dried,  then  partly  burned  by  a  coal  or  oil  fire  kept  going  at  one  end, 
and  finally  completely  burned,  together  with  the  fumes,  at  the  other 
end  of  the  furnace,  just  before  the  gases  went  up  the  chimney. 

In  1893,  in  EUwood,  Ind.,  Sam.  W.  Dixon  built  a  furnace  which 
was  also  extensively  used.  It  had  a  large  horizontal  grate  (on  which 
the  garbage  was  thrown)  which  divided  the  furnace  into  an  upper 
main  destructor  chamber  and  a  lower  evaporation  chamber.  A 
double  fire-box  was  placed  at  one  end,  from  which  the  heat  generated 
by  coal  fires  could  pass,  either  into  and  through  the  upper  or  the 
lower  chamber,  to  the  other  end  into  a  combustion  chamber  for 
deodorizing  and  destroying  the  products  of  combustion.  A  later 
pattern  included  a  third  compartment  or  drying  chamber  over  the 
main  chamber,  on  which  the  garbage  was  first  placed  to  be  dried 
and  then  thrown  into  the  middle  chamber  for  incineration. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  313 

In  1901  Minneapolis  built  the  first  plant  of  quite  a  number  designed 
by  F.  L.  Decarie.  The  furnace  receives  the  garbage  in  a  crate  of  steel 
pipes  suspended  over  the  fire,  to  effect  the  preliminary  drying  and 
prevent  a  packing  of  the  mass.  In  order  to  make  the  steel  pipes  more 
durable,  water  was  circulated  through  them.  Instead  of  fire-brick 
sides,  water  jackets  of  steel  were  used,  with  the  disadvantage  of  keep- 
ing the  furnace  temperature  low  and  preventing  the  required  high- 
temperature  combustion. 

In  1903  a  small  experimental  rubbish  burning  plant  was  built  in 
New  York  City.  It  was  found  that  1  lb.  of  rubbish  produced  1.4  to 
1.5  lb.  of  steam.*  Thereupon  the  rubbish  burning  plants  at  West 
47th  Street  and  Delancey  Street  were  built  in  1906. 

Four  Dixon  furnaces  were  built  in  Queens  Borough,  New  York, 
in  1906.  They  burned  in  one  year  5600  tons  of  garbage  and  680  tons 
of  rubbish.  It  was  necessary,  however,  to  add  766  tons  of  coal.  One 
ton  of  coal  was  required  to  burn  up  7.3  tons  of  garbage. 

Since  the  introduction  of  the  first  garbage  furnaces,  their  use  and 
development  in  America  has  been  rapid,  so  that,  at  the  present  time, 
we  have  more  than  200  municipal  plants  in  operation.  They  are  all 
similar  in  principle,  consisting  of  a  hearth  on  which  the  wet  garbage 
falls  from  the  charging  holes  at  the  top  of  the  furnace.  At  one  end 
of  this  hearth,  in  the  earlier  designs,  is  a  coal  grate,  the  hot  gases  from 
which  pass  over — and  in  the  Dixon  furnace  also  under — the  garbage 
hearth  on  their  way  to  the  chimney.  In  this  way  the  garbage  is  first 
dried,  and  then  is  stoked  down  on  the  hearth  and  burned.  Occa- 
sionally, an  additional  coal  grate  is  set  near  the  chimney,  as  first 
recommended  in  1890  by  Col.  Jones,  of  Wrexham,  England,  and  called 
by  him  a  "crematory,"  so  that  any  unconsumed  gases  may  be  com- 
pletely burned  before  escaping  into  the  air.  The  larger  plants  con- 
sisted of  a  series  of  garbage  hearths  and  coal  grates,  and  natural  draft 
with  cold  air  was  used. 

Many  of  these  garbage  furnaces  have  failed  to  operate  satisfac- 
torily, partly  due  to  improper  design  and  construction  of  details,  and 
partly  to  unskilled  operation  and  a  tendency  to  use  too  little  fuel. 
Later  designs,  including  those  by  S.  R.  Lewis,  have  included  mechanical 
stoking  and  better  construction,  so  that  more  satisfactory  operation 
has  resulted.  The  American  garbage  furnace  costs  less  to  build  than 
the  English  type  for  mixed  refuse,  and  has  been  useful  in  many  smaller 
cities,  where  suitable  plant  locations  were  available,  where  occasional 
incomplete  combustion  was  not  objectionable,  and  where  the  furnace 
was  not  utilized  to  generate  power. 

During  the  last  dozen  years,  successful  adjustments  of  the  furnaces 

*  Parsons,  "Disposal  of  Municipal  Refuse,"  pp.  122  and  123. 


314     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

of  English  type  to  American  conditions  have  been  introduced.  The 
first  successful  plant  was  built  at  Westmount,  a  suburb  of  Montreal, 
Que.,  in  1906.  Its  capacity  was  50  tons  of  mixed  refuse  per  twenty- 
four  hours.  This  first  plant  was  followed  by  smaller  ones  at  Vancouver, 
Seattle,  and  West  New  Brighton,  and,  in  1910,  a  very  large  plant  was 
built  at  Milwaukee,  with  a  capacity  of  300  tons  of  mixed  refuse  per 
twenty-four  hours. 

These  plants  were  all  hand-charged;  but,  since  1910,  mechanical 
charging  apparatus  have  been  developed,  and  plants  with  this  improve- 
ment have  been  put  into  successful  operation,  for  instance,  at 
Clifton,  Paterson,  Savannah,  Atlanta,  and  Toronto.  All  these  plants 
are  equipped  with  boilers  for  steam  raising,  and  can  develop  useful 
power  in  excess  of  that  required  for  plant  operation.  At  Milwaukee 
the  steam  is  used  to  generate  electric  power  for  operating  screw  pumps 
to  pump  water  from  Lake  Michigan  into  the  Milwaukee  River,  a  mile 
above  its  mouth,  and  thereby  to  flush  it.  At  Westmount  the  steam 
is  used  for  generating  electricity  for  street  lighting.  At  Savannah  the 
steam  is  used  for  pumping  part  of  the  city's  water  supply. 

There  are  now  in  use,  therefore,  two  types  of  incinerators:  The 
English  furnace  for  burning  mixed  refuse  without  additional  fuel,  and 
the  American  garbage  furnace,  designed  to  operate  with  additional 
fuel.  The  first  of  these  types  we  shall  call  "  Refuse  Incinerators  " 
and  the  second  "  Garbage  Furnaces." 

Refuse  incinerators  are  either  hand-charged  or  mechanically- 
charged,  depending  on  the  method  of  delivering  the  refuse  into  the 
furnace.  They  are  top-fed,  front-fed,  or  back-fed  depending  on  the 
location  of  the  charging  door.  Garbage  furnaces  are  also  either  hand- 
charged  or  mechanically-charged,  but  are  almost  always  of  the  top- 
fed  type.     Mechanical  charging  has  been  developed  chiefly  in  America. 

A.  FUNDAMENTAL  CONSIDERATIONS 

Combustion  or  incineration  is  the  process  of  combining  certain 
elements  in  fuels  with  atmospheric  oxygen  to  produce  heat  and  there- 
with to  destroy  the  organic  matter  of  the  refuse.  A  furnace  is  required 
for  this  process.  As  a  temperature  of  at  least  1250°  Fahr.  is  also 
desired,  and,  as  the  thermal  efficiency  of  furnaces  for  refuse  cannot 
be  as  high  as  when  coal  is  used,  a  careful  design  and  operation,  based 
on  correct  principles  of  combustion,  are  necessary  to  maintain  the 
incineration  at  the  foregoing  temperature. 

The  incinerating  or  calorific  value  of  refuse  depends  chiefiy  on  its 
composition.  For  this  reason  it  is  essential  to  know  the  proportions 
of  its  combustible  matter.     It  has  been  assumed,  as  a  minimum  figure, 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  315 

that  f  lb.  of  refuse  kIiouIcI  produce  1  lb.  of  steam  (Milwaukee);  yet  this 
efficiency  has  not  always  been  attained.  On  the  other  hand  the  best 
incinerators  have  produced  2}^  lb.  of  steam — and  more — from  1  lb.  of 
refuse.  Where  steam  production  has  been  most  efficiently  developed, 
unfortunately,  we  find  the  fewest  records  of  a  proper  aralj-'sis  of  the 
refuse  to  verify  the  degree  of  efficiency.  To  prevent  undesirable 
results  at  the  outset,  or  a  shortening  of  the  life  of  the  plant,  it  is 
desirable  to  ascertain,  before  the  designs  are  made,  the  approximate 
composition  of  the  refuse  and  its  calorific  value. 

The  principal  elements  required  in  combustion  are  carbon,  hydro- 
gen, and  oxygen.  Carbon  combines  with  oxygen  to  form  CO  and  CO2. 
It  will  burn  to  CO2  when  in  the  solid  state,  or  partly  in  the  solid  and 
partly  in  the  gaseous  state,  the  change  being  first  from  C  to  CO  and 
then  from  CO  to  CO2.  When  the  supply  of  air  to  the  fire  is  insufficient, 
CO,  or  carbon  monoxide,  is  not  further  oxidized,  but  remains  as  such. 

Free  hydrogen  combines  with  oxygen  to  form  water,  with  the 
production  of  intense  heat.  Hydrogen  in  this  state  has  a  calorific 
value  of  62,000  B.t.u.  per  pound,  but  the  hydrogen  present  in  refuse 
as  water  does  not  add  heat  to  the  combustion.  The  heat  required  to 
split  up  the  hydrogen  and  oxygen  in  the  water  is  greater  than  the 
heat  developed  in  the  recombination  of  the  two  elements,  by  an 
amount  of  about  10,000  B.t.u.  per  pound. 

Carbon  and  hydrogen  also  appear  in  refuse  as  hydrocarbons,  such 
as  tar  and  pitch.     Kent  *  states  that: 

"  If  the  hydrocarbons,  on  their  first  issuing  from  amongst  the  burning 
carbon  are  mixed  with  a  large  quantity  of  hot  air,  these  inflammable  gases  are 
completely  burned  with  a  transparent  blue  flame,  producing  carbon  dioxide 
[CO2]  and  steam.  When  mixed  with  cold  air  they  are  apt  to  be  chilled  and 
pass  off  unburned." 

Carbon  and  free  hydrogen  do  not  often  constitute  by  weight  more 
than  one-fifth  of  the  mixed  refuse.  They  are,  therefore,  masked  by  a 
large  quantity  of  inert  material  and  water,  and  it  is  difficult  to  bring 
the  oxygen  of  the  draft  air  into  intimate  contact  with  the  combustible 
substances. 

The  total  heat  of  the  combustion  of  these  substances  with  oxygen 
may  be  determined  with  a  Mahler's  bomb,  as  described  in  Chapter  I. 
The  total  heat  of  combustion  of  1  lb.  of  fuel,  or  the  calorific  value,  in 
British  thermal  units  per  pound,  may  be  determined  from  the  fol- 
lowing expression: 


H  =  14500 


C+4.28   H 


I)] 


"  Mechanical  Engineers'  Pocket-Book,"  9th  Ed.,  p.  816. 


316     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

in  which  the  carbon,  hydrogen,  and  oxygen  are  expressed  in  decimals 
of  a  pound  per  pound  of  refuse.  Thus,  a  refuse  containing  20%  of 
carbon,  3%  of  hydrogen,  and  6%  of  oxygen  would  have  a  calorific 
value  of  4296  B.t.u.  Some  calorific  values  of  refuse,  as  determined  by 
tests,  are  given  in  Chapter  I. 

The  quantity  of  air  required  to  burn  refuse  must  be  calculated  in 
order  to  determine  the  necessary  draft  and  the  proper  sectional  areas 
of  flues  and  chimneys.  If  the  composition  of  the  refuse  is  known, 
the  calculation  may  be  made  in  the  following  manner: 

Assume,  as  before,  that  the  refuse  contains  20%  of  carbon,  3% 
of  hydrogen,  and  6%  of  oxygen.  The  atomic  weight  of  carbon  is  12 
and  of  oxygen  16,  so  that  12  lb.  of  carbon  require  32  lb.  of  oxygen  to 
burn  completely  to  CO2.  Each  pound  of  carbon,  therefore,  requires 
2.67  lb.  of  oxygen.  Hydrogen  has  an  atomic  weight  of  1.  In  burning 
to  water,  or  H2O,  2  lb.  of  hydrogen  require  16  lb.  of  oxygen.  There- 
fore, each  pound  of  hydrogen  requires  8.0  lb.  of  oxygen. 

The  theoretical  quantity  of  oxygen  required  to  burn  1  lb.  of  the 
refuse  can  be  calculated  as  follows: 

2 .  67  X 0 .  20  =  0 .  534  lb.  of  0  for  the  carbon, 

/  0.06\ 

8x(0.03--g- )  =0.180  lb.  of  0  for  the  hydrogen, 

0 .  714  lb.  of  0  for  the  refuse. 

In  the  first  line  the  second  figure  (0.20)  is  the  quantity  of  carbon  in 
1  lb.  of  refuse.  In  the  computation  of  the  oxygen  required  to  burn  the 
hydrogen,  an  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  6%  of  oxygen  already 
in  the  refuse.  Hence,  in  the  second  factor  of  the  second  line,  the  figure 
0.03  (quantity  of  hydrogen  in  1  lb.  of  refuse)  is  corrected  by  the 
equivalent,  as  hydrogen,  of  the  quantity  of  oxygen  present,  or  one- 
eighth  of  0.06,  as  shown. 

Air  contains  by  weight  23%  of  oxygen,  so  that  a  refuse  of  the 
assumed  composition  would  require,  theoretically,  approximately 
3.1  lb.  of  air  per  pound  of  refuse.  In  usual  practice,  however,  incin- 
erators cannot  be  operated  with  the  quantity  of  air  theoretically 
required,  and  an  excess  must  be  supplied,  amounting  to  from  50  to 
100%  of  the  computed  quantity,  or  from  4.5  to  6.0  lb.  of  air  per  pound 
of  mixed  refuse.  Areas  of  flues  and  openings  for  the  hot  gases  must 
be  computed  with  allowances  for  this  excess  and  for  the  temperature 
of  the  gases  at  the  points  under  consideration. 

A  velocity  of  air  in  the  flues  of  not  more  than  20  ft.  per  second, 
and  averaging  about  10  ft.  per  second,  is  desirable.  If  the  flues  are 
too  small,  a  back  pressure  of  hot  gases  against  the  furnace  fronts  and 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  317 

doors  will  result,  so  that  exposed  ironwork  will  be  burned  out.  The 
flues  in  the  refuse  incinerator  at  Newcastle-upon-Tyne,  in  England, 
were  too  small,  and  the  doors  in  the  furnace  fronts  were  burned  out 
two  or  three  times  a  year. 

For  convenience  of  calculation,  the  volume  and  w'eight  of  air  at 
different  temperatures  are  given  in  Table  92.  The  volume  of  1  lb. 
of  various  gases  at  different  temperatures  is  given  in  Table  93.  The 
atomic  weights,  calorific  values,  and  weights  of  oxygen  required,  per 
pound  of  combustible,  are  given  for  various  substances  in  Table  94. 
Table  95  gives  the  approximate  volume  of  the  products  of  combustion 
at  different  temperatures  for  different  quantities  of  air  supply. 

B.  PLANT  LOCATION 

As  already  indicated,  refuse  incinerators  and  garbage  furnaces 
have  been  built  in  a  number  of  towns  in  close  proximity  to  dwellings 
and  other  buildings,  without  prejudice  to  such  property.  The  ques- 
tion of  plant  location  is  important,  on  account  of  its  influence  on  the 
cost  of  collection.  Expert  engineering  opinion,  as  set  forth  in  a 
number  of  reports,  maintains  that  high-temperature  refuse  incinerators 
or  garbage  furnaces  can  be  placed  nearer  to  centers  of  population 
than  can  any  other  plants  for  refuse  disposal.  Collection  costs, 
therefore,  as  a  rule,  will  be  lower  when  the  final  disposal  is  by  incin- 
eration. 

Regarding  the  effect  on  the  people  residing  in  the  \dcimty,  Good- 
rich says:  "  It  is  no  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  discharge  from  the 
modern  destructor  chimney  is  of  a  much  less  offensive  nature  than  is 
the  case  with  an  average  coal-fired  boiler  chimney." 

The  location  of  a  few  plants,  partly  under  unfavorable  conditions, 
but  in  successful  operation,  may  be  described  as  follows: 

Milwaukee. — Refuse  Incinerator.— CapsLcity,  300  tons  per  twenty- 
four  hours.  Plant  is  at  entrance  to  harbor  and  within  1  mile  of  the 
business  center  of  the  city.  Saloons  and  cheap  frame  houses  are 
within  half  a  block. 

West  New  Brighton — Refuse  Incinerator. — Capacity,  60  tons  per 
twenty-four  hours.  Plant  is  on  water  front,  about  50  ft.  lower  than 
Main  Street,  two  blocks  away.  Main  Street  is  lined  with  stores  of  a 
good  class,  flats,  boarding  houses,  and  second-class  residences. 

Atlanta. — Refuse  Incinerator. — Capacity,  240  tons  per  twenty-four 
hours.  Plant  is  in  railroad  yards,  about  three-quarters  of  a  mile 
from  the  business  center  of  the  city. 

Vancouver. — Refuse  Incinerator. — Capacity  40  tons  per  day. 
Plant  is  on  an  alley,  200  ft.  from  a  main  street,  about  four  blocks 
from  the  City  Hall,  and  in  a  well  built-up  business  district. 


318     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  92. — Volumes  and  Weights  op  Dry  Air 
AT  Atmospheric  Pressure,  14 .  6963  lb. 

491.6 


Weight,  in  pounds  per  cubic  foot  =  0 .  080728  X 
Volume,  in  cubic  feet  per  pound  = 


r+459.6 
r+459.6 


0.080728X491.6 


Temper- 

Volume, 

Weight  of 

Volume  of 

Temper- 

Volume, 

Weight  of 

Volume  of 

ature, in 

compared 

one  cubic 

one  pound 

ature,  in 

compared 

one  cubic 

one  pound 

degrees, 

to  volume 

foot  of  air, 

of  air. 

degrees. 

to  volume 

foot  of  air, 

of  air. 

Fahren- 

at 

in 

in 

Fahren- 

at 

in 

in 

heit 

32  degrees 

pounds 

cubic  feet 

heit 

32  degrees 

pounds 

cubic  feet 

0 

0.9349 

0.08635 

11.581 

725 

2.4108 

0.03348 

29.863 

10 

0.0552 

0.08451 

11.883 

750 

2.4617 

0 . 03279 

30.494 

20 

0.9756 

0.08275 

12.085 

775 

2.5126 

0.03213 

31.124 

30 

0.9959 

0.08106 

12.337 

800 

2.5635 

0.03149 

31.755 

32 

1.0000 

0.08073 

12.387 

825 

2.6144 

0.03088 

32.385 

40 

1.0163 

0.07943 

12.589 

850 

2.6653 

0 . 03029 

33.016 

50 

1.0366 

0.07788 

12.841 

875 

2.7162 

0.02972 

33.646 

60 

1.0570 

0.07638 

13.093 

900 

2.7671 

0.02917 

34 . 277 

70 

1.0774 

0.07494 

13.346 

925 

2.8180 

0.02864 

34.907 

80 

1.0977 

0.07354 

13.598 

950 

2.8689 

0.02814 

35.536 

90 

1.1181 

0.07220 

13.850 

975 

2.9198 

0.02765 

36.168 

100 

1.1384 

0.07091 

14.102 

1000 

2.9707 

0.02718 

36.799 

110 

1 . 1588 

0.06967 

14.354 

1025 

3.0216 

0.02672 

37.429 

120 

1.1791 

0.06847 

14.606 

1050 

3.0725 

0.02628 

38.060 

130 

1 . 1995 

0 . 06730 

14.858 

1075 

3.1234 

0.02585 

38.690 

140 

1.2199 

0.06618 

15.111 

1100 

3.1743 

0.02543 

39.321 

150 

1 . 2402 

0 . 06509 

15.363 

1125 

3 . 2252 

0.02503 

39.952 

160 

1 . 2606 

0.06404 

15.615 

1150 

3.2761 

0.02463 

40.582 

170 

1 . 2809 

0 . 06302 

15.867 

1175 

3.3270 

0 . 02426 

41.212 

180 

1.3013 

0.06204 

16.119 

1200 

3.3779 

0.02390 

41.843 

190 

1.3217 

0.06108 

16.372 

1225 

3.4288 

0.02354 

42.473 

200 

1 . 3420 

0.06015 

16.624 

1250 

3 . 4797 

0.02320 

43 . 104 

210 

1.3624 

0.05924 

16.876 

1275 

3 . 5306 

0 . 02286 

43 . 734 

212 

1 . 3664 

0 . 05908 

16.926 

1300 

3.5815 

0.02254 

44 . 365 

220 

1.3827 

0.05838 

17.128 

1325 

3 . 6323 

0.02222 

44.994 

230 

1.4031 

0.05754 

17.381 

1350 

3.6832 

0.02192 

45.625 

240 

1.4234 

0.05671 

17.663 

1375 

3.7341 

0.02162 

46.255 

250 

1.4438 

0.05591 

17.885 

1400 

3.7850 

0.02133 

46.886 

260 

1.4642 

0.05513 

18.137 

1425 

3.8359 

0.02104 

47.517 

270 

1.4845 

0.05438 

18.389 

1450 

3.8868 

0.02077 

48.147 

280 

1 . 5049 

0.05364 

18.641 

1475 

3.9377 

0.02051 

48.777 

290 

1 . 6252 

0.05293 

18.893 

1500 

3.9886 

0 . 02024 

49.408 

300 

1.5456 

0.05223 

19.145 

1550 

4.0904 

0.01974 

50.669 

320 

1.5863 

0.05089 

19 . 649 

1600 

4.1922 

0.01926 

51.930 

340 

1.6270 

0.04962 

20.154 

1650 

4 . 2940 

0.01880 

53.191 

360 

1.6677 

0.04841 

20.659 

1700 

4 . 3958 

0.01836 

54.452 

380 

1 . 7085 

0.04725 

21.164 

1750 

4.4876 

0.01795 

55.713 

400 

1 . 7492 

0.04615 

21.668 

1800 

4.5993 

0.01755 

56.973 

420 

1 . 7899 

0.04510 

22.172 

1850 

4.7011 

0.01717 

,58.234 

460 

1.8713 

0.04314 

23.180 

1900 

4 . 8029 

0.01681 

59.495 

480 

1.9120 

0.04222 

23.685 

2000 

5.0065 

0.01612 

62.017 

500 

1.9528 

0.04134 

24.189 

2100 

5.2101 

0.01549 

64 . 539 

520 

1.9935 

0.04050 

24.694 

2200 

5.4137 

0.01491 

67.061 

540 

2 . 0342 

0.03969 

25.198 

2300 

5.6173 

0.01437 

69 . 583 

560 

2.0749 

0.03891 

25.702 

2400 

5.8208 

0.01387 

72 . 104 

580 

2.1156 

0.03816 

26.207 

2500 

6.0244 

0.01340 

74.626 

600 

2.1563 

0.03744 

26.711 

2600 

6.2280 

0.01296 

77.148 

620 

2.1971 

0.03674 

27.216 

2700 

6.4316 

0.01255 

79 . 670 

640 

2.2378 

0.03607 

27.720 

2800 

6.6352 

0.01217 

82.192 

680 

2.3192 

0.03481 

28 . 729 

2900 

6.8388 

0.01180 

84.714 

700 

2.3599 

0.03421 

29.233 

3000 

7.0424 

0.01146 

87 . 236 

INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


319 


Table  93. — Volume  of  1  Pound  of  Various  Gases  at  Different 
Temperatures,  Under  a  Pressure  of  1  Atmosphere 

(Volume  in  cubic  feet) 


Temperature, 
in  degrees. 

Carbon 
dioxide, 

Carbon 
monoxide. 

Nitrogen, 

N 

Steam, 
H2O 

Sulphur 
dioxide. 

Ail 

Fahr. 

COj 

CO 

SO2 

100 

9.22 

14.53 

14.52 

6.36 

14.10 

200 

10.86 

17.09 

17.11 



7.50 

16.62 

300 

12.51 

19.65 

19.69 

30.53 

8.63 

19.15 

400 

14.15 

22.21 

22.28 

34.95 

9.77 

21.67 

500 

15.79 

24.77 

24.87 

39.37 

10.90 

24.19 

600 

17.44 

27.33 

27.46 

43.79 

12.04 

26.71 

700 

19.08 

29.89 

30.05 

48.21 

13.17 

29.23 

800 

20.73 

32.45 

32.64 

52.63 

14.31 

31.76 

900 

22.37 

35.01 

35.23 

57.05 

15.44 

34.28 

1000 

24.01 

37.57 

37.82 

61.47 

16.58 

36.80 

1100 

25.66 

40.13 

40.41 

65.89 

17.71 

39.32 

1200 

27.30 

42.69 

43.00 

70.31 

18.85 

41.84 

1300 

28.95 

45.25 

45.58 

74.73 

19.98 

44.37 

1400 

30.59 

47.81 

48.17 

79.15 

21.12 

46.89 

1500 

32.23 

50.37 

50.76 

83.57 

22.25 

49.41 

2000 

40.45 

63.17 

63.71 

105.67 

27.93 

62.02 

2500 

48.67 

75.97 

76.66 

127.77 

33.60 

74.63 

3000 

56.89 

88.77 

89.61 

159.87 

39.28 

87.24 

Table  94. — Some  Combustion  Data  for  Various  Substances 


Substance 

Sym- 
bol 

Atomic 
weight 

Combustion 
product 

Weight 

of 
oxygen 

per 

pound 

of 

substance, 

in 

pounds 

AiH  Required 

PER  Pound 
OF  Substance 

Calorific 

value,  in 

British 

thermal 

units,  per 

pound 

of 

substance 

Pounds 

Cubic 

feet 

at  62° 

Fahr. 

Oxygen 

Hydrogen 

0 
H 
C 

CO 
CH4 

C2H4 

S 

16 
1 

12 
12 
28 
16 
28 
32 

H2O 

CO 

CO2 

CO2 
CO2  and  H2O 
COjandHzO 

SO2 

8.00 
1.33 
2.67 
0.57 
4.00 
3.43 
1.00 

34.80 
5.80 

11.60 
2.48 

17.40 

15.00 
4.35 

457 
76 

152 
33 

229 

196 
57 

62,032 
4,452 

14,500 
4,325 

26,383 

21,290 
4,032 

Carbon  monoxide 

Marsh  gas 

Olefiant  gas 

Sulphur 

320     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  95. — Temperature  of  Combustion  and  Volume  of  Gases 
WITH  Different  Quantities  of  Air  Supply 


Supply  of  Air,  in  Pounds,  per  Pound  of  Fuel 

ture  of 

gases,  in 

2  1b. 

3  lb.        4  lb. 

5  1b. 

6  1b. 

degrees, 

1 

Fahr. 

Volume  of  Gases,  in  Cubic  Feet,  at  Temperatures  Indicated 

68 

27 

40 

54 

68 

80 

104 

29 

43 

57 

71 

86 

212 

34 

51 

68 

85 

102 

392 

43 

65 

86 

108 

130 

572 

53 

78 

105 

131 

156 

752 

62 

92 

123 

154 

184 

1112 

80 

120 

159 

199 

240 

1472 

98 

147 

196 

245 

294 

1832 

116 

174 

232 

280 

348 

2500 

151 

226 

302 

378 

452 

Oak  Park. — Garbage  Furnace. — Capacity,  30  tons  per  twenty-four 
hours.  Plant  is  on  a  traveled  street,  about  four  blocks  from  the 
business  center  of  the  town. 

Ft.  Wayne. — Garbage  Furnace. — Capacity,  about  40  tons  per 
twenty-four  hours.  Plant  is  on  a  traveled  road,  about  ten  blocks 
from  the  business  center  of  the  city. 

Within  the  Metropolitan  District  of  London  a  large  number  of 
incinerators  operate  without  objection.  Goodrich  states  that  "no 
less  than  94%  of  the  refuse  destructors  [incinerators]  working  at 
present  [1904]  in  Great  Britain  are  in  close  proximity  to  houses." 
Limiting  conditions  of  location  can  be  determined  from  a  study  of 
plants  critically  situated,  where  operating  conditions  have  been 
reasonably  free  from  objectionable  influences  and  are  otherwise 
satisfactory. 

A  more  serious  feature  of  the  location  of  incinerators  is  the  neces- 
sary concentration  of  collection  wagons  in  one  vicinity.  This  con- 
centration is  an  argument  for  having  a  number  of  smaller  plants  in 
different  localities,  instead  of  one  large  plant.  The  cost  of  collection 
is  thus  reduced  by  shorter  hauls,  but  it  costs  more  per  cubic  yard  to 
incinerate  in  separated  small  plants  than  in  a  single  large  plant. 

The  collection  wagons  need  not  create  a  nuisance  if  they  are  of 
proper  size,  are  covered,  and  carry  fresh  garbage.  Incinerator  buildings 
should   be   substantial   and   attractive,   and   surrounded   by   parked 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  321 

grounds.     The  comparative  costs  of  the  buildings  and  equipment  of  a 
number  of  plants  are  given  in  Chapter  XII. 

C.  DESIGN  AND  CONSTRUCTION 

The  design  of  a  refuse  incinerator  may  be  divided  into  the  following 
parts: 

a.  A  furnace  built  of  brick,  heavily  braced  with  structural  steel, 
and  containing  one  or  more  cast-iron  or  brick  grates  and  ashpits.  A 
combustion  chamber  is  commonly  included  in  the  furnace. 

b.  An  opening  or  special  apparatus  for  charging  refuse  into  the 
furnace. 

c.  The  necessary  ducts,  valves,  and  blowers  to  deliver  the  requisite 
quantity  of  air  into  the  furnace  and  bring  the  oxygen  into  contact 
with  the  combustible  parts  of  the  refuse. 

d.  The  necessary  flues  and  chimney  to  conduct  the  gases  of  com- 
bustion out  of  the  furnace  and  into  the  atmosphere.  In  the  best  types 
of  incinerators  the  hot  gases  are  passed  through  air  heaters  to  pre- 
heat the  forced-draft  air,  and  also  to  boilers  for  the  generation  of 
steam.  A  combustion  chamber  is  included,  to  insure  complete  incin- 
eration of  the  volatile  matter  and  to  remove  dust  from  the  escaping 
gases. 

e.  An  opening,  with  or  without  means  for  removing  the  residual 
clinkers  and  ashes  from  the  grates  and  ashpit. 

The  design  and  arrangement  of  these  essential  parts  of  a  refuse 
incinerator  depend  on  the  type  of  furnace  desired,  the  refuse  to  be 
burned,  the  experience  and  preferences  of  the  designer,  and  some  local 
conditions.  However,  the  principles  of  the  design  of  furnaces  are 
similar  for  all  types.  A  diagrammatic  section  typical  of  one  unit  of 
the  Milwaukee  incinerator  is  shown  in  Fig.  79. 

1.  Furnace  Proper, — An  important  difference  in  the  design  for 
various  furnace  types  is  caused  by  the  character  and  condition  of  the 
refuse  to  be  burned.  For  instance,  a  wet  refuse,  such  as  garbage,  or 
mixed  refuse  containing  a  high  percentage  of  garbage  (70%),  gener- 
ally requires  some  kind  of  a  drying  hearth  from  which  the  refuse  can 
be  raked  down  on  the  grate.  With  dry  refuse  this  is  not  necessary, 
because  it  can  be  charged  directly  on  the  grate. 

The  furnace  structure  of  a  mixed  refuse  incinerator  ordinarily 
contains  from  two  to  six  grates  and  a  common  combustion  chamber. 
It  is  rectangular  in  plan  and  from  12  to  16  ft.  wide,  the  length  being 
determined  by  the  number  of  grates.  The  height  is  from  12  to  18  ft. 
The  walls  are  of  face-brick,  backed  with  common  brick,  and  lined  with 
fire-brick.     On  the  outside  of  the  brickwork  there  is  a  series  of  ver- 


322     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  323 

tical  and  horizontal  channel-iron  or  I-beam  back-stays,  held  at  the 
top  and  bottom  by  heavy  tie-rods.  The  cast-iron  furnace  fronts  are 
usually  attached  to  the  vertical  stays.  The  whole  structure  must 
rest  on  a  substantial  foundation. 

In  many  of  the  early  garbage  furnaces,  built  in  America,  and  by 
contractors  under  inadequate  specifications,  the  bracing  was  not 
sufficient.  This  caused  distortions  which  broke  the  fronts  and  cracked 
the  brickwork,  producing  openings  for  the  entrance  of  cold  air.  Low 
temperatures  resulted,  and  complaints  of  the  resulting  nuisances 
caused  many  of  these  garbage  furnaces  to  fall  into  disfavor  and  be 
abandoned. 

The  area  of  the  grate  depends  on  the  character  of  the  refuse  and 
its  rate  of  burning.  The  best  size  must  be  determined  largely  in 
practice.  Table  96  shows  the  composition  of  refuse  and  rate  of  burning 
of  mixed  refuse  per  square  foot  of  grate  surface  in  a  number  of  incin- 
erators of  different  designs.  With  a  fairly  dry  mixed  refuse  of  high 
calorific  value,  the  rate  of  burning  per  square  foot  can  be  increased 
materially  by  introducing  a  greater  draft  under  a  higher  pressure,  equal 
to  from  6  to  10  in.  of  water,  as  is  done  at  Hamburg,  Germany. 

The  arrangement  or  setting  of  the  grate  in  the  furnace  depends  on 
the  general  design,  and  is  partly  controlled  by  the  necessity  for  keeping 
the  grate  cool  by  contact  with  the  forced  draft.  The  air,  if  pre- 
heated, comes  to  the  grate  at  a  temperature  of  about  300°  Fahr., 
which  is  not  high  enough  to  burn  out  the  grate  bars. 

As  ordinarily  set,  a  fixed  grate  has  an  area  of  from  20  to  30  sq.  ft. 
It  is  built  up  of  bars,  hooked  or  hinged  at  the  back,  and  resting  on  a 
sliding  face  in  front,  in  order  to  provide  amply  for  expansion  and 
contraction.  The  grate-bars  may  be  built  of  cast-iron  channels. 
They  are  perforated  with  numerous  holes  for  a  better  distribution  of 
the  draft  air  to  the  burning  refuse.  The  bars  should  have  narrow 
spaces  between  them,  often  tV  in.,  and  several  bars  are  usually  cast 
together.  In  some  furnaces  the  center  grate-bar  is  ridged  about  3  in. 
high,  so  as  to  form  a  weak  section  in  the  resulting  clinker,  which  is 
therefore  more  easily  broken  and  withdrawn.  The  sides  of  the  grate 
are  protected  with  a  cast-iron  curb,  the  depth  of  which  depends  on 
the  nature  of  the  refuse  to  be  burned.  A  maximum  curb  depth  of 
about  12  in.  is  used  for  a  comparatively  dry  and  light  refuse.  Such  a 
refuse  may  be  charged  on  the  grate  to  a  depth  of  about  3  ft. 

The  side-curbs  and  grate-bars  are  kept  from  burning  out  by  the 
comparatively  cool  forced-draft  air,  which  must  reach  all  parts  of  the 
grate.  In  this  matter  valuable  experience  has  been  gained  at  the 
refuse  incinerator  at  Atlanta,  Ga.  In  the  original  design  the  hot 
clinker  was  dropped  from  a  sliding  grate  into  the  ashpit  below.     The 


324    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


o 
O 


13 

0 

T3 

t: 

1 

-f^      1 

1 

-*^ 

c 

^   CI    >i         >>  c 

■4^ 

bC 

bC 

K 

o3  := 

^ 

03 

e] 

c3 

(4 

c3 

ffi 

a£ 

0; 

ft 

c3 

V 

,£3 

"c 

V.  '2 

'c 

-o 

'ft 

cc 

OJ      K 

0: 

0) 

b£ 

13 

T3 

^ 

fc    ^ 

-C 

a 

1 

,£3 

i 
^ 

Q. 

0. 

1 

0 

«*-< 

«4-l 

C 

c 

CO 

0 
(4-. 

S  «*- 

w 

Z 

0 

0 
-(J 

w 

-2 

^1 

'd    c 

&   c 
ft  ^ 

'SI 

T3 
T3 

0 

^^  -kj 

■M 

s 

M  — 

W    r- 

^  — 

hC 

1 

.2   '^ 

.s 

1=1 

>>  s  .s 

^.g 

fe  .2 

o3 

.s 

■3  ^ 

"S 

C 

-£3     =- 

nd         '^ 

ft   c 

^ 

°s 

«   o- 

56 

"E 

& 

«5£ 

«        a      °^ 

0 

5E 

0 

0 

H 

C 

a; 

c 

0 

M    S 

■^ 

a  3 

0 

03 

0 

C) 

■g  "eS 

t'    I-. 

.0  0 

0 
3 

03    3 

0  0 
CO  »o 

0 

0 

CO 

c 

'Si- 

oc 

CO 

CO 

0  c 

CD 

c 

"0  X 

cr 

CO    (© 

CD 

10 

TfH 

^ 

CD 

IC 

ri 

co  c^ 

oc 

t> 

0)     C 

m 

bfl   CD 

1— t  1 — ' 

■5    3 

f-i 

**H    ^ 

03     0 

01 

0 

tf  (£ 

P. 

0 

t< 

3 

00    00 

Ttl 

c 

2 

03 

CO   CO 

CO 

1—1 

iC 

^ 

~ic 

1" 

n 

m 
0 

J5 

'i 

Ol 

IS 

Oi    00 

00 

Oi 

CO 

t: 

faC 

c- 

c 

0 

H 

J^ 

lO    CD 

Tt< 

TtH 

10 

X3 

^ 

c 

oi 

0 

1—1 

^ 

CO 

■* 

0 

bC 

« 

c: 

P4 

« 

IQ 

& 

1^4 

s 

CO  i> 

0 

»o 

05 

0 

CD 

c 

0 

rt 

^ 

0    05 

^ 

00 

cq 

CO 

Oi 

CD 

c 

ic 

i« 

■< 

CO  »o 

TtH 

CO 

00 

cc 

-* 

a 

a. 

<D   y- 

i> 

0 

w^ 

0- 

Vi 

g 

c 

3 

<4-l 

0 

a. 

a 

(U 

Eh 

«- 

;. 

^ 

"^ 

s- 

i-H 

0 

£, 

d 

a 

^ 

03 

I>  t^ 

00 

CD 

00 

o- 

0 

X 

E 

S  "^      9 

0 

0 
0 

■^O    05 

d 

CO 

T-H 

CD 

T-H 

i 

F 

S  00       10 

CD 

C3 

lO  c^ 

'^ 

TfH 

1— 1 

CO 

lO 

l>  ^ 

'^ 

T-H 

0 

cZ 

>< 

^ 

d 

0 

>, 

03 

,5 

a 

0 

.bj3 
'u 

G 

? 

>■ 

oi 

cc 

c 
S 

c 
c 

0 

> 

;2i 

dJ 

'^ 

s. 

1 

s 

^ 

^ 

a: 

0 

<1 

cd 

INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  325 

forced-draft  air  was  admitted  through  the  bottom  of  the  ashpit.  It 
passed  up  through  the  hot  dinker,  absorbing  heat  on  its  way  to  the 
grate  proper.  When  it  reached  the  grate  it  was  too  hot  to  allow 
sufficient  cooling,  and,  with  a  poor  distribution  of  the  material,  the 
grates  burned  out.  In  the  ashpit,  the  clinkers  became  so  hot  that 
they  sometimes  melted  and  the  mass  ran  into  the  air  inlets  at  the 
bottom.  This  condition  was  relieved  successfully  by  introducing 
the  forced-air  draft  through  the  sides  of  the  ashpit,  instead  of  at  the 
bottom. 

In  some  designs,  the  air  is  introduced  through  spaces  just  under 
the  side-curbs;  this  gives  it  additional  heat.  It  then  passes  to  the 
ashpit  and  through  the  grate  up  to  the  fire. 

The  division  of  the  furnace  into  a  number  of  grates  produces  a 
more  uniform  average  fire  over  them  and  a  more  uniform  heat  in  the 
combustion  chamber.  The  effect  of  a  poor  fire  on  one  grate  will  be 
improved  by  good  fires  on  the  other  grates.  When  one  grate  is  being 
clinkered,  the  action  of  only  one  part  of  the  furnace  is  reduced.  With 
divided  ashpits,  also,  each  grate  can  be  operated  as  an  independent 
unit.  Grouping  the  cells  back  to  back,  with  the  main  flue  between, 
reduces  the  loss  by  radiation  and  allows  thorough  mixing  of  the  gases 
from  the  different  cells. 

Garbage  furnaces  must  contain  a  drying  hearth  and  a  main  grate, 
and  are  generally  built  with  complete  and  separate  cells  or  units,  rather 
than  with  multiple  cells.  The  requisite  size  of  the  furnace  depends  on 
the  moisture  contained  in  the  garbage  and  the  consequent  rate  of 
drying,  rather  than  on  the  rate  of  burning  on  the  grates.  As  ordi- 
narily designed,  garbage  furnaces  provide  a  sufficient  area  of  drying 
hearth  to  handle  one  day's  delivery  of  garbage,  the  whole  quantity 
being  stored  within  the  furnace.  An  exception  to  this  type  is  the 
mechanically-fed  furnace  designed  by  S.  R.  Lewis,  in  which  storage  is 
provided  in  a  bin  outside  of  the  furnace,  and  the  drying  hearth  is 
made  large  enough  to  dry  small  quantities  of  garbage,  as  they  are 
intermittently  charged  into  the  furnace. 

In  the  Lewis  design  the  drying  grate  is  sloped  to  the  main  grate 
at  an  angle  of  45°,  in  order  to  provide  drainage  and  facilitate  stoking. 
When  the  drying  grate  is  set  horizontally  or  is  slightly  arched,  drain- 
age and  stoking  are  facilitated  by  leaving  holes  in  the  hearth.  Fire- 
brick hearths,  when  receiving  wet  garbage  on  top,  absorb  moisture 
and  are  subject  to  intense  heat  below.  They  will,  therefore,  warp 
and  crack  in  from  one  to  two  years. 

The  principal  material  of  construction  in  the  furnace  is  fire-brick, 
and  it  should  be  selected  carefully.  Bricks  in  arches,  when  subjected 
to  great  heat,  should  have  a  high  refractory  quality,  a  comparatively 


326     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

porous  texture,  and  a  minimum  contraction  and  expansion  under 
changes  of  temperature.  In  bricks  for  drying  hearths  which  are  to 
receive  wet  refuse,  and  also  are  subjected  to  high  temperatures,  the 
percentage  of  absorption  of  water  must  be  low.  They  should  be  close- 
grained  and  dense.  Fire-bricks  around  stoking  doors,  subject  to 
abrasion  from  tools  and  also  to  great  heat,  must  be  hard  and  refrac- 
tory. The  Semet  Solvay  Company  has  found,  after  a  large  number 
of  trials,  that  in  coke  ovens  a  95%  silica  brick  gives  the  best  service 
under  great  abrasion  and  great  heat.  The  fire-bricks  used  in  the 
construction  of  the  refuse  incinerator  at  Milwaukee  were  selected 
carefully  for  the  various  parts  of  the  furnace.  Their  composition  and 
tests  are  shown  in  Table  97. 


Table  97. — Analyses  op  Fire-brick 
Used  in  Milwaukee  Refuse  Incinerator 

Percentages  of  chemicals  by  weight 


Substance,  absorption,  and  elongation 

Kind  of  Bric 

E 

C.  Franklin 
Crown 

Royal 

Star 

Scioto 
Star 

Silica 

53.25% 
41.01 

3.36 

0.41 

0.47 

1.50 

6.93% 
0.4 

55.25% 
41.78 

1.67 

0.27 

0.50 

0.56 

8.64% 
0.67 

56.17% 
40.86 

1.53 

0.29 

0.52 

0.62 

7.00% 
1.40 

Aluminum 

Iron  oxide 

Lime 

Magnesia 

Alkali 

Absorption,  in  48  hours    

Elongation,  at  1800°  Fahr 

The  "  G.  Franklin  Crown  "  brick  is  tough,  hard,  and  close-grained. 
It  is  used  to  line  the  sides  and  doors  of  furnaces,  and  is  selected 
especially  to  withstand  the  wear  and  tear  from  stoking  and  clinkering. 
"  Royal  Star  "  is  a  softer,  coarse-grained,  highly  refractory  brick,  and 
useful  in  the  arches  of  furnaces,  where  the  heat  is  greatest.  "  Scioto 
Star  "  is  a  good  refractory  boiler  brick,  and  is  useful  in  lining  the 
second  pass  of  the  boilers  and  the  flues. 

Fire-bricks  should  be  laid  in  fire-clay,  mixed  to  the  consistency  of 
cream.  Each  brick  should  be  dipped  into  the  clay  and  then  ham- 
mered into  its  place  with  a  heavy  mason's  hammer,  so  as  to  be  prac- 
tically in  contact  with  the  surrounding  bricks  on  all  sides.  The 
maximum  space  between  the  bricks  should  not  be  more  than  |  in., 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  327 

but  this  thickness  of  joint  should  never  extend  over  the  whole  bed, 
and  the  average  thickness  should  be  less  than  ^  in.  To  accomplish 
this,  the  bricks  in  each  course  must  be  quite  uniform  in  thick- 
ness. 

In  walls  more  than  one  brick  thick,  the  fire-bricks  may  be  held 
together  by  strips  of  ro-in.  iron,  extending  clear  through  and  over 
them,  the  end  of  the  iron  being  bent  over  as  a  hook  at  the  exposed  sur- 
face of  the  brickwork.  This  is  required  because  a  difference  in  tem- 
perature on  the  two  sides  of  the  brickwork  would  naturally  produce 
different  degrees  of  expansion  and  contraction,  and  the  usual  header 
and  stretcher  bond  would  give  no  opportunity  for  the  brickwork  to 
adjust  itself  to  these  movements  between  the  inside  and  outside 
courses. 

Around  the  clinkering  doors,  large  bricks  of  two  sizes  are  used. 
These  should  be  laid  with  a  wide  overlap,  which  will  prevent  them  from 
being  loosened  under  the  jars  of  clinker  removal. 

It  is  good  practice  to  have  the  furnace  top  built  of  two  independent 
brick  arches  separated  by  a  thick  sand  joint.  The  lower  arch  receives 
the  full  heat  from  the  fire,  and  protects  the  upper  arch,  which  thereby 
will  remain  in  its  original  position  to  hold  the  roof  of  the  furnace  in 
place. 

2.  Charging  Apparatus, — In  the  first  furnaces  built,  the  refuse 
materials  were  charged  bj^  hand  through  openings  in  the  top,  front,  or 
back.  During  the  last  few  years,  apparatus  for  mechanicallj^  charging 
the  refuse  into  the  furnace  from  the  top  have  been  developed  suc- 
cessfully, particularly  in  America,  by  the  Destructor  Company,  and 
are  now  essential  parts  of  an  economically  operated  plant  of  large  size. 

Bottom-charged  incinerators  are  fired  by  hand  through  doors  in 
the  front  or  back  of  the  furnace  chamber.  The  earlier  furnaces  made 
by  Meldrum  were  charged  in  front.  This  type  was  built  at  Seattle, 
and  at  Westmount.  A  typical  section  through  a  Meldrum  plant  is 
shown  in  Fig.  103,  representing  the  one  in  Watford,  England. 

In  the  late  Nineties,  Heenan  and  Froude  developed  the  back-fired 
furnace,  in  which  the  refuse  was  shoveled  in  through  a  door  :it  the 
back,  and  the  clinker  was  removed  through  a  door  at  the  front.  It 
was  claimed  that  by  this  procedure  all  the  refuse  was  forced  to  pass 
through  the  fire  before  the  ashes  could  leave  the  furnace.  A  plant 
of  this  type  is  in  operation  at  West  New  Brighton.  It  is  illustrated 
in  Fig.  94. 

Dr.  Lenormand,  of  Le  Havre,  in  his  report,  says  that  in  1908  the 
Heenan  and  Froude  system,  with  some  detailed  improvements, 
offered,  in  his  opinion,  an  "incontestable  superiority, "  because  it  has 
best  solved  the  hygienic  problem. 


328     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

For  top-feeding,  the  refuse  for  the  earlier  furnaces  was  stored  in  a 
large  pile  on  a  floor  above  them.  This  is  unsightly,  and  also  makes 
working  conditions  unpleasant.  Leaks  in  the  doors  over  the  top 
openings  allow  the  hot  gases  from  the  furnace  to  ignite  the  drier  por- 
tions of  the  stored  refuse,  causing  smoke  and  odor  within  the  building. 
These  objectionable  conditions  are  avoided,  first  by  storing  the  refuse 
in  enclosed  bins  adjoining  the  charging  doors,  and  then  by  mechanical 
charging. 

In  1908,  the  authors  made  a  trip  through  England  and  Germany, 
investigating  furnaces  for  burning  mixed  refuse;  and  particular 
attention  was  given  to  the  method  of  charging  the  refuse  into  the 
furnace.  An  account  of  the  methods  and  their  relative  merits  was 
given  by  Greeley  in  Engineering  News  (August  26,  1909),  a  part  of 
which  is  reproduced  as  follows : 

"  It  was  not  intended  to  make  any  comparison  between  the  English  and 
American  incinerators,  but  rather  to  bring  out  the  respective  features  of  the 
hand-charged  and  mechanically-charged  incinerators  of  the  high-tempera- 
ture type.  These  wUl  be  described  and  then  compared  on  the  basis  of  (1) 
cleanliness  and  freedom  from  nuisance;  (2)  construction;  (3)  operation; 
and  (4)  efficiency  as  measured  by  the  value  of  the  output.  For  instance, 
it  is  claimed  by  some  that  it  is  more  difficult  to  build  a  mechanically-charged 
plant  than  a  hand-charged  plant;  that  the  hand-charged  plant  gives  better 
return  in  useful  heat  energy  and  at  the  same  time  entails  a  lower  cost  of 
repairs.  Others  maintain  that  the  mechanically-charged  plant  operates  more 
economically,  in  a  cleaner  fashion,  and  gives  equally  good  steaming  results. 
It  will  be  interesting  to  see  how  these  points  work  out  when  judged  by  actual 
results  in  practice. 

"Gbeenock,  Scotland 

"  One  type  of  mechanical-charging  device  is  known  as  the  Horsfall 
'  Tub  Feed.'  In  Great  Britain  it  has  been  installed  and  successfully  operated 
at  Leeds,  Newcastle-upon-Tyne,  and  at  Greenock,  Scotland;  and  recently 
the  device  has  been  fitted  to  two  of  the  furnace  cells  at  the  incinerators  in 
Zurich,  Switzerland.  The  incinerators  at  Greenock  illustrate  the  operation 
of  this  type  of  mechanical  device  as  favorably  as  any  of  the  others,  and  it  will 
therefore  be  described  as  typical. 

"  The  refuse  burned  is  a  mixture  of  garbage,  ashes,  rubbish,  and  manure, 
and  is  of  average  quality.  As  it  comes  to  the  plant  it  is  dumped  from  the 
carts  into  a  wooden  tub  set  in  a  tipping-pit  below  the  ground  level.  The  tub 
is  a  strongly  built  square  wooden  box,  large  enough  to  hold  about  L5  tons  of 
refuse,  and  is  open  at  the  top,  with  hinged  lids  at  the  bottom.  Normally, 
these  lids  are  closed  tight  by  the  rods  and  hooks  from  which  the  tub  is  sus- 
pended. The  tipping-pit  has  space  for  four  tubs.  A  hopper,  especially 
designed  to  prevent  spUling,  is  arranged  on  tracks  to  move  off  and  on  over  the 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


329 


pit.  When  a  tub  is  filled  with  refuse,  it  is  lifted  by  an  electrically-operated 
overhead  traveling  crane  to  the  platform  over  the  dinkering  floor  and  a  little 
above  the  level  of  the  furnace  top.  This  platform  affords  sufficient  space  for 
storing  eighty  tubs  of  refuse.  The  opening  in  the  top  of  each  furnace  is  closed 
by  a  charging  door  with  a  water-sealed  seat.  Surmounting  the  charging  door 
and  fastened  to  it  is  a  cradle  of  levers  and  balance  weights.  When  the  crane 
deposits  a  tub  into  this  cradle,  the  weight  of  the  tub  causes  the  cradle  to 
lower;  and  simultaneously  the  levers  lift  the  door  from  its  water-sealed  seat 
and  push  it  on  guides  to  one  side,  thus  allowing  the  lower  edge  of  the  hopper  to 
descend  a  very  short  distance  into  the  charging  hole  of  the  furnace.     As  the 


Fig.  80. — Charging  Floor,  Greenock  Incinerator,  Showing  Refuse  Tub  and 
Water-sealed  Doors. 


cradle  takes  the  weight  of  the  tub  off  the  crane,  the  lids  in  the  bottom  of  the 
tub  are  released  and  the  contents  of  the  tub  are  discharged  onto  the  grate 
below.  When  the  tub  is  empty,  the  crane  carries  it  back  to  the  storage  plat- 
form or  the  tipping-pit;  and  the  water-sealed  door,  actuated  by  the  balance 
weights,  is  drawn  back  to  its  seat.  The  operation  occupies  less  than  one 
minute.  Figs.  80  and  81  illustrate  this  device  and  Fig.  82  shows  the  general 
layout  of  the  Greenock  plant. 

"  This  type  of  charging  device  obviates  aU  handling  of  the  refuse  at  the 
plant,  and  the  only  manual  work,  above  that  required  in  an  ordinary  electric 
power  station,  is  the  clinkering  of  the  furnace.  Consequently,  incineration 
plants  fitted  with  this  charging  device  are  cleanly  and  free  from  unsightly 
refuse;  and  there  are  none  of  the  nuisances  or  sources  of  infection  incident  to 
the  storing  of  refuse  in  large  open  spaces  or  bins  where  men  are  working.     The 


330     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

tubs  used  in  the  plants  at  Leeds,  Newcastle,  and  Greenock  hold  about  3  cu. 
yd.  of  refuse.  When  this  is  dumped  onto  the  grate  it  forms  a  layer  from  2  to 
3  ft.  thick.  This  thick  layer  requires  considerable  pressure  on  the  draft,  in 
order  to  thoroughly  supply  all  parts  of  the  burning  mass  with  air,  and  there- 
fore more  power  is  used  in  unproductive  work  than  if  the  thickness  of  the  fire 
were  kept  more  nearly  imiform.  As  it  requires  from  one  to  two  hours  to  reduce 
one  charge  of  refuse  to  hard  clinker,  it  is  not  possible  for  the  fireman  to  '  nurse  ' 
the  fire,  and  consequently  some  irregularities  in  the  temperature  are  unavoid- 
able. These  irregularities  do  not  appear  to  be  excessive  and  are  partly  com- 
pensated for  by  the  alternate  charging  of  the  grates,  thus  allowing  the  heat  from 
one  fire  at  the  maximum  point  to  average  up  with  the  low  heat  of  the  freshly 


Fig.    81. — Cross-section,    Greenock   Refuse   Incinerator,    Showing   Tub-feed 
System  of  Charging. 


charged  grate.  Nevertheless,  in  the  long  run,  charging  such  large  quantities 
of  refuse  onto  the  grate  suddenly,  without  adapting  the  composition  of  the 
refuse  to  the  condition  of  the  fire,  must  result  in  a  lower  average  tempera- 
ture. Just  how  this  affects  the  useful  heat  energy  will  be  brought  out  later. 
It  is  possible  in  smaller  plants,  where  the  crane  is  not  worked  up  to  its  full 
capacity,  to  provide  a  larger  number  of  smaller  tubs,  thus  approaching  the 
more  nearly  uniform  rate  of  charging  of  the  hand-fired  plant;  and  if  each  tub 
were  filled  with  an  average  grade  of  refuse,  the  efficiency  of  combustion  would 
be  still  further  increased. 

"  The  clinker  resulting  from  the  burning  of  these  large  charges  was  in 
every  way  as  good  as  that  from  the  hand-fired  plants,  and  showed  Conclusively 
that  equally  thorough  combustion  was  obtained. 

"  The  system  of  levers  and  balance  weights  used  to  operate  the  water- 
sealed  doors  is  by  no  means  '  fool  proof  '  and  requires  careful  design  and  opera- 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


331 


tion.  The  flues  at  one  plant  of  this  type  were  too  small  properly  to  carry 
away  the  gases  of  combustion.  Consequently,  there  was  quite  an  outward 
pressure  on  the  clinkering  doors  and  charging  doors  of  the  furnace.  The 
heat  thus  driven  out  of  the  furnace  evaporated  the  water  from  the  water- 
seals  and,  attacking  the  metal  directly,  cracked  it  so  that  the  seats  were  no 


^"Si^j^vv-^^ 


longer  water-tight.  The  levers  had  become  slightly  distorted,  so  that  the 
doors  did  not  reseat  themselves  accurately,  and  on  one  occasion,  while  the 
writer  was  at  the  plant,  it  was  necessary  for  the  crane  men  to  push  the  door 
into  place.  However,  the  other  plants  visited  have  worked  satisfactorily 
without  undue  attention  or  repair,  and  indicate  that  the  fault  is  not  wholly 
with  the  mechanically-operated  charging  device. 


332    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  This  type  of  device  makes  necessary  the  construction  of  a  higher  building 
and  the  installation  of  one  or  more  cranes,  both  of  which  are  items  of  increased 
cost.  The  plant  cannot  be  operated  without  a  crane.  Experience  at  Green- 
ock indicates  that  at  least  two  cranes  should  be  provided,  for  the  only  crane  in 
service  at  that  plant  broke  down  for  a  matter  of  half  a  day  and  put  the  plant 
completely  out  of  business.  Only  one  craneman  was  required  at  any  of  these 
plants.  At  Leeds,  burning  over  50  tons  per  day,  the  craneman  had  plenty  of 
time  to  assist  in  the  clinkering,  so  that  only  one  other  man  was  in  attendance. 
One  man  at  Greenock  easily  operated  the  crane  charging  six  grates. 


"  Hamburg,  Germany. 

"  In  Germany,  several  devices  for  feeding  refuse  into  incinerators  mechan- 
ically have  been  developed.  Recently,  Caspersohn  and  Uhde,  at  Hamburg, 
have  been  carrying  on  a  series  of  experiments  on  the  incineration  of  refuse 
which  have  included  the  design  and  operation  of  a  mechanical-feeding  device. 
The  results  of  the  experiments  have  not  yet  been  published,  but  the  experi- 
mental furnace  cell  fitted  with  a  mechanical-charging  device  was  in  operation 
at  the  time  of  the  writer's  visit  to  the  plant. 

"  This  experimental  cell  consists  of  a  grate  one  square  meter  in  area  placed 
over  an  ash  pit  and  set  in  the  vertical  brick  walls  of  the  cell.  Between  the 
cell  and  the  main  flue  is  a  large  dust  catcher,  shaped  like  an  inverted  cone, 
fitted  with  a  sliding  door  at  the  bottom,  and  set  high  enough  so  that  a  car  can 
be  placed  below  the  door  to  receive  the  dust  and  soot  collected.  This  dust 
catcher  is  designed  to  be  separate  for  each  cell,  and  is  required  because  the  high 
pressure  on  the  draft  carries  large  quantities  of  dust  and  soot  out  of  the  cell 
toward  the  main  flue  above  the  grate.  The  furnace  walls  are  arched,  and 
there  is  a  charging  door  located  directly  over  the  grate.  This  door  is  fitted 
with  the  mechanical  device  for  delivering  the  refuse  to  the  grate.  It  is  pro- 
posed in  a  plant  now  being  built  in  Hamburg  to  use  a  large  number  of  cells  of 
this  design,  each  cell  to  be  a  separate  unit,  with  ash  pit,  ash  and  clinkering 
doors,  grate,  charging  device,  dust  catcher,  and  cormection  to  the  main  flue. 
The  main  flue  serves  as  a  combustion  chamber  connecting  the  different  cells, 
and  carries  the  hot  gases  to  the  boilers.  A  typical  section  of  such  a  furnace  cell 
with  charging  device  is  shown  in  Fig.  83. 

"  The  charging  device  consists  of  a  long  iron  drum  sliding  inside  of  a 
shorter  concentric  drum  of  considerably  larger  diameter.  These  drums  fit 
into  a  conical  sheet-steel  funnel,  built  into  the  brick  work  of  the  furnace  top. 
The  two  drums  and  the  funnel  form  two  annular  triangular  spaces  between  the 
vertical  sides  of  the  drums  and  the  sloping  surface  of  the  funnel.  The  upper 
of  these  annular  spaces  opens  at  the  floor  level,  and  the  fireman  rakes  or  shovels 
refuse  into  it  from  the  adjacent  storage  platform.  Raising  the  drum  of  large 
diameter  allows  the  refuse  to  fall  into  the  lower  annular  space.  The  outer 
drum  is  then  replaced  and  afterward  the  contents  of  the  lower  space  are 
dropped  directly  into  the  cell  by  raising  the  smaller  drum.  Thus  the  opera- 
tion of  charging  the  furnace  is  performed  without  actually  exposing  the  grate 
to  the  outside  air,  and  there  is  no  leakage  of  hot  gases  from  the  furnace.     At 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


333 


Hamburg,  a  large  open  platform  was  built  over  the  furnaces  and  the  refuse 
was  stored  loosely  on  this  platform,  and  from  it  raked  or  shoveled  to  the 
charging  mechanism.  Consequently  this  type  of  device  is  not  wholly  mechan- 
ical, but  requires  a  certain  amount  of  manual  handling  of  the  refuse.  The 
drums  were  raised  and  lowered  by  a  differential  pulley  operated  by  the  fireman 
on  the  storage  platform. 

"  This  device  is  very  simple,  and  has  few  moving  parts.  It  is  arranged 
so  that  the  refuse  can  be  mixed  and  graded  before  feeding  it  into  the  fire,  and  so 
that  the  size  of  the  charge  can  be  varied  at  will.  Ordinarily,  1  cu.  yd.  of 
refuse  is  discharged  at  one  time  into  the  cell,  and  this  forms  a  layer  3  ft.  deep 
on  the  grate.  The  grate  is  built  small  in  area,  with  vertical  sides,  so  that  the 
refuse  will  fall  over  the  grate  in  a  layer  of  approximately  even  depth  and  will 
thus  present  a  uniform  resistance  to  the  forced  draft.  This  charge  is  burned 
in  about  thirty  minutes,  and  one  man  can  care  for  the  charging  of  two  cells. 


Charging 
Device 


m 


Fig.  83. — Special  Charging  Device,  Hamburg  Refuse  Destructor. 

(From  Engineering  News.) 


One  man  is  also  required  to  clinker  two  cells.  Several  tests  have  been  made 
with  this  charging  device,  and  in  them  the  temperature  varied  from  1650° 
to  2000°  F.,  the  extreme  minimum  being  1000°  F.,  after  clinkering.  The 
temperature  was  recorded  continuously  in  the  main  flue,  and  the  low  points 
in  the  curve  corresponded  closely  to  the  times  of  charging  the  cell. 

"  The  pressure  on  the  draft  was  6  to  7  in.  of  water,  and  large  quantities  of 
dust,  amovmting  to  about  1  cu.  yd.  in  eight  hours,  were  carried  out  of  the  cell 
to  the  flue.  In  a  plant  where  the  boiler  is  close  to  the  cell  and  where  steam 
is  valuable,  this  dust  settling  on  the  boiler  tubes  might  seriously  reduce  the 
rate  of  evaporation.  It  is  not  entirely  possible  to  charge  any  furnace  mechan- 
ically, for  a  long-continued  time,  in  much  smaller  quantities  than  1  cu.  yd., 
because  the  frequency  of  charging,  necessary  to  maintain  the  capacity  of  the 
plant,  becomes  burdensome.  Therefore,  the  large  charge,  the  depth  of  refuse 
on  the  grate,  the  high  pressure  on  the  draft,  the  production  of  the  dust,  and 
the  periodic  lowering  of  the  temperature  just  after  charging  are  inevitable. 

"  The  clinker  from  the  experimental  cell  was  thoroughly  burned  and  hard. 
The  refuse  lying  exposed  in  the  charging  device  and  upon  the  storage  platform 
was  unsightly  and  liable  at  any  time  to  create  a  nuisance.     To  raise  the 


334     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

refuse  from  the  ground  level  to  the  storage  platform  required  the  use  of  a  crane 
or  of  an  inclined  runway,  both  of  which  are  elements  of  expense.  The  height 
of  building  required,  while  greater  than  for  a  bottom-charged  incinerator,  is 
not  so  great  as  for  the  plant  using  the  tub-feed'  device. 

"  Herbertz  Device. 

"  Herbertz,  a  contractor,  with  headquarters  at  Cologne,  has  developed  a 
device  for  charging  refuse  into  incinerators.  To  demonstrate  the  success  of  his 
design,  he  has  built  an  experimental  plant  at  Cologne,  which  operates  for  the 
enlightenment  of  municipal  authorities  who  are  considering  the  construction 
of  a  refuse  incinerator.  Herbertz  has  a  plant  in  operation  at  Kiel  and  one 
under  construction  at  Frankfort. 

"  The  plant  at  Cologne  consists  of  five  separate  grates,  built  adjacent  to 
each  other.  A  common  combustion  chamber  extends  along  the  back  of  these 
grates  and  the  hot  gases  from  the  grates  pass  directly  through  this  chamber 
on  to  two  water-tube  boilers.  The  grates  each  have  an  area  of  about  f  sq.  yd., 
and  are  made  of  an  iron  plate  perforated  with  24  holes  for  the  forced  draft. 
The  cells  or  grates  all  front  on  one  clinkering  room.  Above  this  clinkering 
room  is  a  large  sheet-iron  bin,  the  bottom  of  which  has  a  slope  of  about  45° 
downward  to  the  top  of  the  furnace.  A  vertical  conveyor  lifts  the  refuse  into 
this  bin.  At  the  bottom  of  this  slope,  and  forming  one  side  of  the  bin,  is  a 
vertical  sheet-iron  wall;  and  about  3  ft.  from  this  is  a  similar  sheet-iron  wall. 
Between  the  two  walls  are  placed  iron  chutes  which  lead  through  the  furnace 
top  to  the  grates.  An  operator  on  a  platform  over  the  combustion  chamber 
rakes  refuse  down  from  the  bin  into  the  chutes,  and  keeps  them  always  full 
of  refuse.  The  emptying  of  a  charge  into  the  cell  is  effected  by  means  of  a 
sliding  door  in  the  chute,  which  is  operated  by  a  lever  from  the  clinkering  floor. 
A  set  of  signals  indicates  to  the  operator  above  whenever  a  chute  becomes 
empty. 

"  It  was  customary  at  the  Cologne  plant  to  charge  about  1  cu.  yd.,  of 
refuse  on  to  the  grate  at  a  time.  This  gives  a  depth  of  refuse  on  the  grate  of 
about  4  ft.,  and  requires  a  pressure  on  the  draft  of  as  much  as  12  in.  of  water. 
Each  cell  has  a  capacity  of  about  10  tons  of  refuse  per  day.  The  combustion 
of  refuse  was  thorough,  and  the  recorded  temperatures  on  the  many  tests, 
which  have  been  made  with  a  variety  of  refuse  from  many  cities,  vary  from 
1200°  to  2000°  F.  The  storage  bin  can  be  made  large.  At  Frankfort,  where 
the  plant  will  consist  of  several  units,  each  similar  to  the  plant  at  Cologne,  the 
bin  has  a  capacity  sufficient  to  hold  the  refuse  collected  in  twenty-four  hours. 
With  this  type  of  charging  device,  the  refuse  is  kept  away  from  the  operators 
and  well  out  of  sight.  The  operator  above  can  vary  the  size  of  charge,  as 
directed  by  the  fireman,  and,  to  a  certain  extent,  can  determine  the  grade  of 
refuse  needed  for  any  particular  charge.  The  actual  charging  of  the  furnace 
and  the  opening  of  the  charging  door  is  performed  between  the  vertical  steel 
walls  when  the  doorways  through  these  are  closed,  and  thus  the  leakage  of 
furnace  gases  out  into  the  working  rooms  is  materially  reduced. 

"  The  Herbertz  plant  at  Kiel  has  been  in  operation  since  November,  1906. 
It  consists  of  three  units,  each  unit  having  six  cells,  one  combustion  chamber 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


335 


and  one  water-tube  boiler.  In  each  cell  is  a  grate  having  an  area  of  about  1 
sq.  yd.  Over  each  furnace  is  a  storage  bin,  each  having  a  capacity  of  about 
100  cu.  yd.  The  plant  has  a  rated  daily  capacity  of  185  tons,  and  burns  an 
average  of  125  tons  per  day.  The  scheme  of  storing  the  refuse  in  closed  bins, 
out  of  sight  and  away  from  the  workmeii,  was  developed  further  at  Kiel  than 
at  Cologne.  The  householders  deposit  the  refuse  in  cans  and  these  cans  are 
collected  on  large  two-horse  wagons  having  a  capacity  of  44  cans  each.  No 
attempt  was  made  to  grade  the  refuse  in  the  cans.  The  wagons  enter  the 
plant  over  an  inclined  roadway  and  deliver  the  cans  on  a  platform  at  the  ele- 
vation of  the  top  of  the  storage  bins.  The  tops  of  these  bins  are  entirely 
enclosed,  and  each  one  is  fitted  with  a  closed  hopper,  built  to  receive  the 
refuse  cans  and  to  discharge  the  contents  of  the  cans  into  the  Vjin  below. 
Figs.  84  and  85  illustrate  how  the  refuse  is  received  at  the  plant  and  placed  in 


Fig.  84. — Section  through  Herbertz  Incinerator,  Kiel,  Germany. 

(From  Engineering  News.) 


the  bins.  The  bins  themselves  are  built  of  sheet-iron,  and  are  similar  to  those 
at  Cologne.  They  slope  at  about  45°  to  the  top  of  the  furnace,  over  the  clink- 
ering  doors,  and  feed  into  chutes  which  guide  the  refuse  into  the  cells.  The 
chutes  are  filled  and  discharged  just  as  they  are  at  Cologne.  The  feature  of 
the  plant  is  that  the  refuse,  from  the  time  it  is  placed  in  the  cans  at  the  houses, 
is  nowhere  exposed  to  sight  until  it  comes  out  of  the  furnace  as  clinker. 

"  This  method  of  unloading  the  refuse  in  the  cans  at  the  plant,  although  it 
saves  the  expense  of  operating  a  crane,  nevertheless  requires  the  steep  haul  up 
an  inclined  approach,  and  increases  the  labor  at  the  plant  over  that  required 
with  the  tub  feed.  The  force  required  during  the  day  to  deliver  the  refuse 
from  the  wagons  to  the  bins  comprises  four  workmen,  and  an  assistant  emptying 
cans,  and  eight  women  cleaning  the  empty  cans.  The  women  cleaning  the 
cans  should  not  be  charged  against  this  system,  because  in  any  system  the 
receptacles  in  which  the  refuse  is  collected  or  stored  should  be  cleaned. 

"  As  compared  with  a  hand-fired  plant,  this  system  of  charging  the  furnace 
requires  a  greater  height  of  building  and  the  expense  of  an  inclined  roadway. 
As  compared  with  the  tub-feed  device,  it  requires  an  overhead  storage  bin  in 


336     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

addition  to  the  cans  or  tubs  used  on  the  collecting  wagons ;  but  does  not  require 
the  use  of  an  electric  crane.  After  the  refuse  is  placed  in  the  storage  bins  24 
men  are  required  to  operate  the  plant,  including  two  machinists  and  two  boiler 
attendants.  If  the  boiler  attendants  and  machinists  are  not  included,  and  if 
two  men  per  shift  are  included  for  unloading  cans,  the  labor  reduces  to  eight 
men  per  shift  on  the  incinerator  proper. 


^m^^^  ^^ 


■  ■  '  i  t;'-l  ft  I 


Fig.  85. — Refuse  Receiving,  Dumping,  and  Can-washing  Floor,  Kiel 

Incinerator. 

(From  Engineering  News.) 


"  Wiesbaden,  Germany. 

"  A  fourth  type  of  charging  device  has  been  developed  by  Berlit,  engineer 
in  charge  of  refuse  disposal  at  Wiesbaden,  Germany.  This  plant  consists  of 
six  cells,  built  in  pairs,  and  has  a  capacity  of  about  100  tons  per  day.  The 
furnace  top  is  floored  over  strongly  and  divided  longitudinally  into  two  rooms 
by  a  strong  vertical  wall.  The  cart  bodies  containing  the  refuse  are  hoisted 
by  a  crane  and  emptied  on  the  platform  on  one  side  of  the  wall.  On  the  other 
side  of  the  wall  are  located  the  charging  holes  leading  to  the  grate.  For  each 
two  charging  holes,  there  is  one  chute  or  tube  which  can  be  swung  over  either 
charging  hole.  This  chute  leads  through  the  dividing  wall  into  the  refuse 
storage  room  at  a  height  of  about  7  ft.  from  the  floor,  the  chute  being  hinged 
a  few  feet  out  from  the  wall.  Directly  below  the  chute  there  is  a  depression  in 
the  floor  of  the  storage  room  in  which  sets  a  cylindrical  charging  can.  The 
workmen  rake  the  refuse,  piled  loosely  on  the  floor,  into  this  can ;  and  then  by 


INCJNERATJON  OF  REFUSE  337 

means  of  a  pulley  and  guides,  raise  the  can  until  it  empties  the  refuse  it  con- 
tains through  the  chute  into  the  cell. 

"  With  this  type  of  device,  the  refuse  is  piled  openly  in  the  storage  room, 
and  the  workmen  come  in  actual  contact  with  it.  This,  while  being  a  sani- 
tary disadvantage,  allows  the  men  to  deliver  a  fairly  uniform  grade  of  refuse 
to  the  furnace  and  to  vary  the  quality  of  a  charge  to  suit  the  fire.  The  cans 
do  not  contain  more  than  1  cu.  yd.  of  refuse  when  full. 

"  When  ihe  writer  inspected  the  plant,  the  refuse  slid  through  the  chutes 
easily,  and  there  was  no  great  leakage  through  the  feed  holes  during  charging, 
although  the  chute  did  not  fit  tightly  over  the  door.  It  is  possible,  however, 
that  at  times  these  chutes  would  clog  and  cause  trouble  and  delay. 

"  This  type  of  charging  device  does  not  do  away  with  the  crane,  nor  the 
open  storage  of  refuse,  and,  except  that  it  does  away  with  the  physical  dis- 
comfort of  hand-firing,  has  little  advantage  over  the  hand-charged  plant. 
Each  cell  was  charged  every  40  min.  with  about  1  cu.  yd.  of  refuse.  The 
draft  was  furnished  to  each  cell  by  a  separate  motor  fitted  with  a  controlling 
device  for  changing  the  speed  of  the  motor,  and  so  the  pressure  of  the  draft,  to 
suit  the  condition  of  the  fire.  Mr.  Berlit  stated  that  only  about  15%  of  the 
total  electrical  output  of  the  plant  was  used  in  the  forced  draft. 

"  The  Horsfall  tub-feed,  the  Hamburg  device,  the  Herbertz  system,  and 
the  mechanism  in  use  at  Wiesbaden  represent  practically  everything  that  has 
been  developed  to  date  in  the  way  of  special  devices  for  charging  refuse  into 
incinerators.  In  addition  to  the  investigations  of  the  mechanical-feeding 
devices,  as  described  above,  the  writer  visited  hand-fired  plants  at  Zurich, 
Switzerland,  at  Watford,  Wood  Green,  and  Saltley,  England,  and  at  Scranton, 
Seattle,  Vancouver,  and  West  New  Brighton  in  this  country.  Details  of  the 
operation  of  several  other  plants  of  both  types  were  obtained  by  correspond- 
ence. 


"  Hand  Charging. 

"  Since  a  good  deal  has  recently  been  published  about  incinerators  charged 
by  hand,  and  as  there  are  several  of  these  in  operation  on  this  continent,  a 
detailed  description  of  this  type  will  not  be  presented.  It  is  enough  to  say 
that  with  incinerators  of  this  type,  the  refuse  is  commonly  dumped  into  a 
storage  bin  opening  at  the  level  of  the  clinkering  floor.  The  refuse  is  then 
shoveled  by  hand  on  to  the  grate  and  the  clinker  withdrawn  by  the  doors 
through  which  the  furnace  was  charged,  or  the  doors  on  the  opposite  side  of 
the  grate.  Although  it  is  possible  with  hand-firing  to  keep  the  temperature 
of  the  fire  even,  by  proper  regulation  of  the  charge  and  by  frequently  applying 
small  charges,  in  practice  this  cannot  be  carried  to  any  great  extent  on 
account  of  the  possible  inrush  of  cold  air  when  the  furnace  door  is  open.  The 
temperature  is  kept  uniform  to  a  considerable  extent  by  having  a  group  of 
three  or  four  cells  in  one  common  furnace  which  can  be  charged  alternately, 
so  that  the  general  activity  of  the  fire  is  not  seriously  reduced.  Any  of  the 
special  charging  devices  described  might  be  used  with  such  a  multi-cellular 
furnace. 


338    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


"  COMPAKISON   OF   CHARGING    METHODS. 

"  Before  proceeding  with  a  more  detailed  comparison  of  the  mechanically- 
charged  and  hand-charged  incinerators,  it  should  be  stated  that  the  com- 
pleteness of  such  a  comparison  depends  to  a  considerable  extent  on  the  quality 
and  value  of  the  refuse.  Two  plants  cf  equally  good  design  and  economy 
may  show  very  different  results  when  compared  as  to  efficiency  of  combustion, 
if  the  refuse  burned  at  one  of  the  plants  is  of  greater  heat  value  than  the  refuse 
burned  at  the  other.  Complete  records  of  the  character  and  composition  of 
the  refuse  burned  at  the  plants  inspected  are  not  available.  At  some  of  the 
installations  extensive  records  of  the  composition  of  the  refuse  have  been  kept; 
but  even  these  vary  considerably  from  one  season  to  another,  and  do  not  always 
enable  one  to  interpret  the  results  of  records  of  operation  in  a  true  and  com- 
plete way.  Such  plants  as  the  Herbertz  plant  at  Cologne,  where  the  refuse 
from  about  twenty  different  cities  has  been  tested,  give  dependable  data  in 
which  variations  in  the  quality  of  the  refuse  are  obscured  in  the  general 
average  of  results.  In  general,  it  may  be  stated  that  refuse  collected  in  Ger- 
many and  in  America  will  have  a  somewhat  lower  calorific  value  than  English 
refuse.  In  spite  of  this  lack  of  detailed  information  about  the  quality  of 
refuse  burned,  it  is,  nevertheless,  thought  that  the  general  tendencies  of  the 
types  of  incinerators  compared  will  be  sufficiently  marked,  when  averaged 
for  a  large  number  of  plants,  to  largely  outweigh  the  variations  in  the  character 
and  fuel  values  of  the  refuse.  It  should  also  be  stated  that  the  intelligence 
of  the  labor  affects  the  total  efficiency  of  the  plant.  In  this  particular,  incin- 
erators with  special  charging  devices  have  a  certain  advantage  over  hand- 
fired  plants,  in  so  far  as  they  require  a  more  skilled  and  intelligent  class  of 
labor  to  operate  them. 

"  (1)  Cleanliness  or  Freedom  from  Nuisance. — Probably  the  most  unclean 
type  of  refuse  incinerator  is  the  hand-fired  top-fed  plant.  In  plants  of  this 
type,  the  refuse  is  stored  on  platforms  above  the  furnace,  and  the  men  feeding 
the  fires  frequently  have  to  walk  over  and  through  the  refuse.  At  Hamburg 
and  Zurich,  the  openings  into  the  furnaces  were  closed,  after  charging,  by 
jamming  refuse  tightly  into  the  feeding  holes.  This  was  often  done  by  stamp- 
ing with  the  feet,  and  was  an  unclean  operation.  Furthermore,  the  refuse 
was  thus  left  to  cook  over  the  grate,  and  a  most  unpleasant  odor  resulted. 

"  In  the  back-fed  and  front-fed  types  of  incinerator  it  is,  of  course,  neces- 
sary for  the  firemen  to  come  in  physical  contact  with  the  refuse.  This  is 
more  or  less  unpleasant,  depending  upon  the  character  of  the  refuse.  At 
one  of  the  plants  visited  the  refuse  was  so  dusty  during  the  summer  that  hand- 
firing  was  made  endurable  only  by  sprinkling  the  refuse  with  water  as  it  was 
dumped  into  the  storage  bin.  In  England,  there  was  considerable  discussion 
over  the  relative  cleanliness  of  the  front-fed  and  back-fed  types,  but  the  writer 
has  found  little  to  choose  between  them  on  that  score. 

"  The  cleanest  plants  visited  by  the  writer  were  the  mechanically-charged 
plants,  and  particularly  the  tub-fed  plants.  In  these,  the  refuse  is  not  han- 
dled at  all,  but  is  conveyed  in  closed  containers  and  discharged  directly  into 
the  furnace.     There  was  no  refuse  visible  at  any  part  of  the  plant.     There 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  339 

seems  to  be  no  good  reason  why  the  fixed  containers  used  in  charging  the  fur- 
nace could  not  be  either  used  at  the  houses  or  carried  on  specially-designed 
wagons,  somewhat  as  at  Kiel,  through  the  city  collecting  the  refuse  from  the 
houses,  stores,  schools,  etc.  This  would  avoid  dumping  from  the  collecting 
carts  to  the  fixed  containers  at  the  plant,  and  the  refuse  collected  in  the  tubs  or 
containers  could  be  graded  as  the  wagons  passed  from  house  to  house. 

"  In  plants  charged  mechanically  it  is  necessary  to  keep  a  high  pressure  on 
the  draft.  In  spite  of  this,  at  only  one  plant  was  there  any  nuisance  from 
leakage  through  the  charging  holes. 

"  The  writer  found  that  the  higher  building  required  in  the  mechanically- 
charged  plants  to  accommodate  the  crane  and  charging  device,  considerably 
added  to  the  airiness  of  the  building.  It  is  the  opinion  of  the  writer  that  the 
mechanically-charged  plants  are  the  cleanest  and  the  most  sanitary  for  the 
men  operating  the  furnace. 

"  A  refuse  incinerator,  however,  should  be  free  from  nuisance,  not  only  to 
those  operating  the  plant,  but  also  to  the  people  living  and  working  in  the 
neighboring  buildings.  About  no  one  of  the  plants  visited  was  there  any 
decided  odor,  and  it  was  evident  that  in  practically  all  well-built  and  well- 
operated  incinerators,  of  both  top-charged  and  bottom-charged  types,  refuse 
could  be  burned  without  offense  to  the  community. 

"  It  is  necessary,  with  mechanical  charging  and  high  pressure  on  the  draft, 
to  take  great  precautions  to  keep  soot  and  dust  from  being  blown  out  of  the 
furnace  and  up  the  chimney;  results  in  practice  indicate  that  this  is  entirely 
feasible.  The  writer  found  little  to  choose  between  top-  and  bottom-charged 
incinerators  on  the  basis  of  nuisance  to  the  community. 

"  (2)  Construction. — The  simplest  type  of  incinerator  to  buUd  is  the  front- 
fed  type.  Incinerators  built  for  top  charging  must  have  an  opening  in  the 
arch  over  the  grate,  and  require  careful  and  substantial  construction  to  accom- 
plish this  securely.  The  bottom-charged  plants,  and  particularly  those  fired 
in  front,  have  the  charging  doors  in  the  vertical  walls  of  the  furnace  and 
weaken  the  furnace  structure  very  little.  The  top-fed  plants  require  a  strong 
grate  or  a  back  hearth  to  guard  against  fracture  from  the  fall  of  the  refuse. 
This  is  true  even  more  with  the  mechanical-charging  devices,  which  fre- 
quently discharge  the  refuse  from  five  or  more  feet  above  the  grate  level. 
These  features  add  to  the  cost  of  the  top-charged  plants.  Furthermore,  the 
inclined  approach,  belt  conveyor,  or  crane  used  to  lift  the  refuse  above  the 
furnace  top  increases  the  cost  of  the  top-charged  plant.  Consequently,  the 
top-charged  incinerator  should  generally  cost  more  than  the  bottom-charged 
type.  Actual  costs  of  construction  are  misleading  unless  one  knows  the  local 
conditions  controlling  the  building  of  the  plant.  Nevertheless,  the  following 
figures  serve  to  throw  some  light  on  the  relative  construction  costs  of  these  two 
types  of  incinerators.  Most  of  these  costs  are  for  English  incinerators,  and 
cannot  be  used  directly  for  American  practice.  It  is  only  when  used  com- 
paratively that  they  have  value.  Other  features,  such  as  style  of  building, 
also  affect  the  total  cost  of  any  particular  plant. 

"  The  data  presented  in  Tables  98  and  99  are  taken  from  a  paper  by 
Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston,  read  before  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers, 
December,  1907;  from  the  '  Minutes  of  Evidence,'  Vol.  5,  1908,  of  the  Royal 


340     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Commission  on  Sewage  Disposal,  and  from  '  Refuse  Disposal  and  Power 
Production,'  by  W.  Francis  Goodrich.  The  individual  results  differ  widely, 
and  show  how  local  conditions  affect  the  cost  of  construction.  There  may 
be  conditions  for  which  a  top-charged  plant  is  the  more  economical.  In 
general,  however,  the  results  point  to  the  fact  that  the  top-charged  incinerators 
cost  about  10%  more  than  bottom-charged  incinerators. 


Table  98. — Average  Cost  of  Construction 
OP  Bottom-charged  Incinerators 


Plant 


Rated 
capacity, 
in  tons  of 

2000  lb. 

per  day 


Cost 


Total 


Per  ton 


Authority 


Aldershot 

Burslem 

East  Ham 

Eccles 

Epsom 

Fulham 

He3^wood 

Hyde 

Ilkey 

Kettering 

Kings  Norton 

Lytham 

Manchester 

Radcliffe 

Rathmines 

Salisbury 

Seattle 

Sheerness 

Swansea 

Taunton 

Vancouver 

Watford 

West  New  Brighton .  . 

Weymouth 

Worthing 

Wrexham 


50 

33 

67 

63.5 

53.5 
135 

27 

80 

22.5 

28 
100 

27 

33 

40 

67 

30 

60 

26 

71 

60 

48 

53.5 

60 

53.5 

28 

53.5 


$5,800 
18,950 
61,700 
22,000 
22,100 
82,124 
24,300 
34,000 
7,020 
25,480 
73,500 
11,700 
12,700 
16,000 
35,200 
14,600 
36,000 
17,150 
53,900 
19,500 
35,000 
33,000 

19,500 
21,450 
11,324 


S116 
574 
920 
412 
412 
610 
900 
425 
312 
910 
735 
434 
385 
400 
525 
485 
600 
635 
756 
325 
730 
618 
about  1000 
365 
765 
211 


Goodrich 

Fetherston 

Goodrich 


Fetherston 
Goodrich 

Fetherston 


Goodrich 


Fetherston 

Goodrich 

Morse 

Fetherston 

It 

Goodrich 

Greeley 

Goodrich 

Nutting 

Goodrich 

Fetherston 


"  A  mechanical-charging  device  fitted  to  a  top-fed  plant  is  an  added  ele- 
ment of  cost.  The  incinerator  at  Newcastle,  fitted  with  the  Horsfall  tub- 
feed,  cost  about  $48,000,  and  has  a  rated  capacity  of  67  tons,  which  gives  a 
cost  per  ton  of  about  $715.     At  Greenock,  the  incinerator,  with  Horsfall 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


341 


tub-feed,  cost  $95,000,  and  has  a  rated  capacity  of  120  tons,  giving  a  cost  per 
ton  of  $790.  The  cost  of  the  mechanically-charged  plant  at  Leeds  was  only 
$375  per  ton;  but  this  plant  was  built  adjacent  to  an  old  hand-charged  incin- 
erator where  it  was  possible  to  use  the  flues,  boilers,  and  chimney  of  the  old 
plant.  Mr.  George  Watson,  of  the  Horsfall  Co.,  figured  roughly  on  $17,000 
as  the  cost  per  cell  of  a  tub-fed  incinerator.  This,  on  a  basis  of  26  tons  per 
cell  per  day,  as  at  Leeds,  gives  a  cost  per  ton  of  about  $650.  These  figures 
indicate  that  a  mechanically-charged  incinerator  may  cost  in  the  neighbor- 
hood of  $650  to  $700  per  ton  under  conditions  which  would  require  an  expendi- 
ture of  about  $550  per  ton  for  the  hand-fired  bottom-charged  plants.  This 
difference,  at  5%  annual  interest  and  310  working  days  per  year,  reduces  to 
about  2  cents  per  ton.  The  figures  given  for  the  cost  of  construction  are  for 
the  whole  plant,  including  cells,  building,  chimney,  runway,  crane,  and  hopper; 
but  do  not  include  land  or  any  adjacent  electric  plants,  sewage-pumping 
stations,  etc. 


Table  99. — Average  Cost  of  Construction 
OF  Top-charged  Incinerators 


Plant 


Rated 
capacity, 
in  tons  of 

2000  lb. 

per  day 


Cost 


Total 


Per  ton 


Authority 


Accrington 

Belfast 

Brentford 

Bristol 

Bromley 

Burton-on-Trent 

Dalmarnock,  Scotland 

Eastbourne 

Leamington 

Ley  ton 

Llandudno,  Wales .  . .  . 

Ruehill,  Scotland 

Saltley 

Shoreditch 

Southwick 

Stafford 

St.  Pancras 

Stockton-on-Tees 

Walthamstow 

Wandsworth 

Westminster  Boro' . . . . 
Winchester 


60 

134 
60 

120 
50 
28 
84 
75 
75 

100 
28 
89 
95 

112 
62 
50 

100 
22. 

112 
78 
80 
20 


$60,000 
49  000 
40  000 
60,000 
23  900 

23  000 
66,700 
33  000 
30  500 
43  160 
27  980 

100  220 
52  000 

100  500 
45  000 
19,500 

102  900 
15  000 

49  000 

24  500 

50  180 
12,400 


$670 
366 
670 
500 
478 
820 
794 
442 
405 
430 
990 

1130 
547 
900 
725 
390 
644 
670 
438 
315 
630 
620 


Goodrich 
Fetherston 

Goodrich 

ii 

Fetherston 
Goodrich 


Fetherston 

it 

Goodrich 

it 

Fetherston 

it 

it 
it 
it 

Goodrich 


342    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  (3)  Operation. — Data  showing  the  force  required  to  operate  the  different 
types  of  plants  and  the  cost  of  repairs  have  been  obtained  and  are  presented  in 
Tables  ■  100  and  101,  which  follow.  Table  100,  hand-charged  incinerators, 
gives  the  tons  of  refuse  which  can  be  handled  per  man  per  hour.  All  of  the 
hand-fired  plants  are  grouped  together  and  averaged  for  comparison  with 
the  mechanically-charged  plants.  There  is  no  great  difference  in  this  respect 
between  the  hand-fired  bottom-charged  plants  and  the  hand-fired  top-charged 
plants.  Actual  quantities  of  refuse  burned,  instead  of  rated  capacities,  are 
used  in  reducing  the  results  to  a  man-hour  basis. 

Table    100.— Labor   Required  in   the   Operation 
OF  Hand-charged  Incinerators 


Plant 


Top-charged 
or 
bottom- 
charged 


Number 

of  men 

per 

shift 


Tons  of 
2000  lb. 
burned 
per  day 


Tons 

per 

man-hour 


Accrington.  . 

Saltley 

Seattle 

Vancouver. . . 

Watford 

Westmount. . 
Wood  Green. 
Zurich 


Average . 


Top 

Top 
Bottom 
Bottom 
Bottom 

Top 
Bottom 

Top 


5 
3 
4 
2 
2 
3 
2 
10 


40 
60 
60 
50 
30 
30 
35 
160 


0.34 
0.83 
0.63 
1.00 
0.83 
0.42 
0.73 
0.67 


0.66 


Table    101.— Labor    Required    in    the    Operation 

OF   Mechanically-charged  Incinerators 


Plant 


Greenock 

Hamburg  experimental  plant 

Kiel 

Leeds 

Newcastle 

Wiesbaden 

Average 


Number 

of  men 

per 

shift 


Tons  of 
2000  lb. 
burned 
per  day 


110 

60 
125 

53.5 

60 
110 


Tons 

per 

man-hour 


1.14 
1.25 
0.65 
1.12 
0.83 
0.90 


0.98 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  343 

"  The  average  is  brought  down  by  the  low  figure  for  Accrington,  which  has 
a  close,  poorly  ventilated  clinkering  room  where  dinkering  is  hot  and  heavy 
work;  and  by  the  low  figure  for  Westmount,  where  the  plant  is  working  con- 
siderably below  its  rated  capacity.  Omitting  these  two,  the  average  becomes 
0.75  ton  per  man  per  hour.  Mr.  Fetherston  sums  up  his  study  of  27  plants, 
only  one  of  which  was  mechanically-charged,  by  saying  that  '  each  man 
employed  would  handle  0.88  short  ton  per  hour,  ...  At  an  easy  rate  of 
working  there  should  be  no  difficulty  in  destroying  0.75  ton  per  hour  per  man." 
The  writer's  investigations  bear  out  this  conclusion. 

"  As  compared  with  this,  Table  101  shows  the  quantity  of  refuse  handled 
per  man  per  hour  in  the  plants  fitted  with  mechanical-charging  devices. 

"  Herbertz,  who  is  building  a  mechanically-charged  plant  at  Frankfort, 
has  stated  that  the  guaranteed  force  required  to  operate  each  unit  of  four 
grates  is  three  men  per  shift  of  eight  hours.  At  the  capacity  planned  for,  as 
based  on  experiments  made  at  Cologne,  this  averages  to  1.10  tons  per  man- 
hour. 

"  These  tables  indicate  that  with  a  mechanical  charging  device  about  one- 
fifth  of  a  ton  more  per  man  per  hour  can  be  handled  than  without  it.  Assum- 
ing 25  cents  an  hour  for  labor,  this  difference  amounts  to  5  cents  per  ton  in 
favor  of  the  mechanically-charged  incinerators.  For  plants  fitted  with  the 
Horsfall  tub-feed  this  figure  may  be  slightly  greater. 

"  The  cost  of  repairs  for  incinerators  varies  considerably  from  year  to 
year  and  no  very  definite  results  can  be  expected.  The  mechanically-charged 
plants  have  most  of  them  been  built  within  the  last  two  years,  and  there  are 
very  few  data  on  cost  of  repairs.  The  plants  were  grouped  in  Tables  102  and 
103  according  to  whether  they  are  bottom-charged  or  top-charged,  because- 
top-charging  in  general  is  harder  on  the  grate  and  hearth,  and  because  the  top 
charged  plants  are  more  nearly  analogous  to  the  mechanically-charged  plants. 
The  costs  given  in  the  tables  are  taken  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  W.  F. 
.  Goodrich  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Sewage  Disposal,  from  Mr.  Feth- 
erston's  paper,  or  were  furnished  by  Mr.  H.  Norman  Leask,  of  Manchester, 
England.  A  few  of  them  were  taken  from  English  pamphlets  on  refuse 
incineration. 

"  On  a  basis  of  310  working  days  in  a  year,  these  average  results  reduce  to 
about  0.50  cent  per  ton  for  repairs  for  the  bottom-charged  plants  and  2.5 
cents  per  ton  for  hand-fired  top-charged  plants,  a  balance  of  2  cents  per  ton 
in  favor  of  the  bottom-charged  incinerator. 

"  For  the  mechanically-charged  plant  at  Leeds,  now  in  its  fifth  year  and 
burning  53.5  tons  per  day,  the  repairs  for  the  year  1908  amounted  to  $90,  or 
about  $1.68  per  ton  per  year,  which  is  equivalent  to  0.54  cent  per  ton  of 
refuse  burned. 

"  (4)  Efficiency,  and  Value  of  Output. — Perhaps  the  most  satisfactory  way 
to  compare  different  types  of  incinerators  is  on  the  basis  of  the  value  of  the 
output.  The  usual  output  of  a  refuse  incinerator  comprises  chiefly  the 
clinker  and  the  available  heat  energy.  Both  of  these  are  largely  dependent 
upon  the  quality  of  refuse  burned,  and  comparative  results  should  be  reduced 
to  the  same  grade  of  refuse.     This,  however,  is  practically  impossible  to  do, 


344     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  102. — ^Approximate  Cost  of  Repairs 
FOR  Bottom-charged  Incinerators 


Tons  of  20001b. 

Cost  of  Repairs  per  Year 

burned 

per  day 

Total 

Per  ton 

Aldershot 

13 

$0.90 

$0.07 

Birmingham 

37 

40.00 

1  08 

Burslem 

40 

7.00 

0.17 

Gosport 

33 

243.00 

7.38 

Grays 

12 

25.00 

2.08 

Hereford 

12 

21.00 

1.75 

Levenshulme 

50 

8.00 

0.16 

Lytham 

13 

5.00 

0.38 

Manchester 

60 

122.50 

2.05 

RadcUffe 

39 
14 

85.00 
14.00 

2.18 
1.00 

Sheerness 

Watford 

30 

50.00 

1.67 

Weymouth 

20 

8.40 

0.42 

Worthing 

21 

32.00 

1.52 

Wrexham 

Average 

33 

21.00 

0.64 

$1.50 

Table  103. — Approximate  Cost  of  Repairs 
FOR  Top-charged  Incinerators 


PIa.at 


Belfast 

Bolton 

Cambridge.  .  .  . 

Fulham 

Hackney 

Leamington . . . 
Rotherham ... 

Royton 

Southampton.  , 

Average 


Tons  of  20001b. 
burned 
per  day 


90 
50 
29 
118 
142 
39 
56 
16 
45 


Cost  of  Repairs  per  Year 


Total 


$490.00 

68.00 

290.00 

14.80 

22.50 

73.00 

315.00 

146.00 

340.00 


Per  ton 


$5.25 

1.36 

10.00 

12.50 

15.80 

1.87 

5.62 

9.15 

7.55 


$7.90 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


345 


and  only  general  tendencies  can  be  noted  by  tabulating  and  averaging  large 
numbers  of  results  covering  a  wide  range  of  conditions. 

"  The  writer's  observations  lead  him  to  conclude  that  the  value  of  the 
clinker  is  little  affected  by  the  type  of  incinerator  in  which  it  Is  burned.  Thus, 
at  Zurich,  a  hand-charged  top-fed  plant,  the  clinker  and  ash  were  sold  for 
concrete  and  artificial  stone,  and  brought  35  cents  per  cubic  yard.  The  clinker 
from  the  mechanically-charged  plant  at  Newcastle  was  crushed  and  used  in 
city  streets  as  a  surface  grit  to  prevent  horses  from  slipping.  The  clinker  at 
Greenock  was  crushed,  graded,  and  sold,  and  was  of  excellent  quality,  hard 
and  durable.  The  clinker  from  the  hand-charged  plant  at  Watford  was 
used  successfully  for  building  sewage-disposal  works  (filter  beds).  Local 
conditions  affect  the  value  of  clinker  so  greatly  that,  relatively,  the  method 
of  charging  has  almost  no  effect. 

"  On  the  other  hand,  the  method  of  charging  has  an  important  influence 
on  the  value  of  useful  heat  energy  obtained  from  the  refuse.  Tables  104 
and  105  indicate  the  extent  to  which  the  useful  heat  energy  returned  is  influ- 
enced by  the  method  of  charging. 

Table    104. — Evaporation    Obtained    in    Tests 
OF  Hand-fired,  Top-charged  Incinerators 


Plant 


Date 

of 

erection 


Pounds  of  water 

evaporated  per 

pound  of  refuse, 

from  and  at 

212°  Fahr. 


Accrington 

Ashton-on-Lyne 

Birmingham  (Montague  St.) 
Bradford  (Hamerton  St.) . .  . 

Bury 

Canterbury 

Fleetwood 

Fulham 

Hackney 

Llandudno 

St.  Helens 

Shoreditch 

Saltley 

West  Hartlepool 

Wandsworth 

Westmount 

Average 


1900 
1901 
1879 
1898 
1901 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1898 
1899 
1897 

1901 
1897 
1899 


1.39 
0.78 
1.56 
1.25 
0.94 
1.54 
1.19 
1.30 
1.42 
0.86 
1.54 
0.96 
1.82 
1.25 
1.24 
1.36 


1.27 


"  Nineteen  tests  were  made  at  the  mechanically-charged  plant  at  Cologne, 
and  the  average  actual  rate  of  evaporation  was  1.01  lb.  of  water  per  pound  of 


346     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


refuse  at  140  lb.  steam  pressure.  This  is  equivalent  to  about  1.25  lb.  of  water 
per  pound  of  refuse,  from  and  at  212°  F.  The  Greenock  plant,  when  tested, 
gave  an  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°  F.,  of  1.41  lb.  of  water  per  pound  of 
steam.  At  Kiel  the  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°  F.,  is  about  0.95  lb.  of 
water  per  pound  of  refuse,  and  at  Wiesbaden  about  1.08.  These  results  indi- 
cate that  hand-charging  will  give  an  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°  F.,  per 
pound  of  refuse,  of  about  0.40  lb.  of  water  more  than  can  be  obtained  with  a 
mechanical-charging  device. 

Table  105. — Evaporation  Obtained  in  Tests 
OF  Bottom-charged  Incinerators 


Plant 


Date 

of 

erection 


Pounds  of  water 

evaporated  per 

pound  of  refuse, 

from  and  at 

212°  Fahr. 


Ayer 

Burnley 

Burslem 

Darwin 

Eccles 

Grays 

Gloucester 

Hereford 

Kings  Norton 

Lancaster 

Mansfield 

Nelson 

Northampton 

Preston 

Rathmines 

Rochdale 

Salisbury 

Seattle 

Watford 

West  New  Brighton 

Average 


1903 
1902 
1889 
1899 
1904 
1901 
1902 
1897 

1901 
1903 
1900 
1903 
1903 

1894 
1902 
1907 
1903 
1908 


1.58 
2.00 
2.16 
1.48 
1.35 
1.22 
1.74 
1.67 
2.63 
1.63 
1.80 
1.77 
1.32 
1.70 
1.78 
1.81 
1.23 
1.00 
1.56 
1.32 


1.67 


"  Tables  106  and  107,  with  but  two  exceptions,  were  compiled  from  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  W.  F.  Goodrich  before  the  Royal  Commission  on  Sewage 
Disposal.  They  show  the  saving  in  coal  at  sewage-pumping  stations  or  elec- 
tricity works  where  refuse  is  used  to  generate  part  of  the  steam. 

"  These  two  tables  confirm  the  evidence  of  Tables  104  and  105  that  the 
value  of  the  useful  heat  from  refuse  used  to  raise  steam  is  greater  for  the 
hand-fired  bottom-charged  plants  than  for  the  top-charged  plants. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


347 


Table  106. — Approximate  Annual  Saving  in  Coal, 
Due  to  the  Use  of  Steam  Generated  at  Top-^'haroed  I.ncineratohs 


Plant 

Refuse  burned, 
in  tons 
per  day 

Annual  Saving  in  Coal 

Total 

Per  ton 

Bolton 

Leamington 

Leyton 

Newmarket 

Walthamstow 

Westmount 

Average 

50 
39 
160 
12 
67 
30 

$1130 
900 
1090 
1090 
3150 
3000 

7 . 3  cents 

5.8     " 

2.2     " 

29.4     " 

15.0     " 

33.3     " 

15.5  cents 

Table  107. — Approximate  Annual  Saving  in  Coal, 
Due  to  the  Use  of  Steam  Generated  at  Bottom-charged  Incincerators 


Plant 


Aldershot 

East  Ham .... 

Eccles 

Epsom 

Gosport 

Hereford 

Ly  tham 

Taunton 

Watford 

Weymouth . . . 

Average 


Refuse  burned, 
in  tons 
per  day 


13 
33 
31 
13 
33 
12 
13 
22 
30 
20 


Annual  Saving  in  Coal 


Total 


$1700 
4850 
1700 
1800 
1950 
1950 
1330 
560 
1600 
1820 


Per  ton 


42 . 1  cents 
47.4 
17.6 
44.6 
19 

52.5 
33 
8.2 
17.2 
29.3 


31.1  cents 


"  Mr.  W.  Goodrich,  in  his  book  entitled  '  Refuse  Disposal  and  Power 
Production,'  presents  a  table  showing  the  number  of  electrical  units  gener- 
ated per  ton  of  refuse  destroyed  at  twenty  combined  electricity  and  destructor 
works.  If  the  top-charged  and  bottom-charged  plants  listed  in  these  tables  be 
averaged  separately,  the  results  would  show  an  output  of  30  kw.-hr.  per 
short  ton  for  the  top-charged  incinerators,  as  against  40  kw.-hr.  per  short  ton 
for  the  bottom-charged  incinerators. 

"  These  results  have  been  bettered  considerably  in  more  recent  installa- 
tions.    Tests  made  on  the  top-charged  plants  at  Bradford  and  Hackney,  and 


348     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

on  the  mechanically-charged  plant  at  Greenock,  developed  60,  50,  and  80 
kw.-hr.  per  short  ton  of  refuse  burned,  respectively,  the  average  being  63.3 
kw.-hr.  per  ton.  The  bottom-charged  incinerators  at  Stoke-upon-Trent, 
Woolwich,  Preston,  and  St.  Albans  developed,  on  tests,  97,  90,  90,  and  92 
kw.-hr.  per  ton,  respectively,  the  average  being  about  92  kw.-hr. 

"  In  comparing  the  efficiencies  of  incinerators  on  the  basis  of  electrical 
imits  generated,  the  efficiency  of  the  machinery  becomes  a  factor,  as  well  as 
the  grade  of  the  refuse,  and  the  results  are  not  so  reliable  as  the  evaporative 
tests.  Nevertheless,  the  evidence  is  strong  that  with  bottom-charging,  as 
compared  to  top-charging,  a  greater  output  of  electrical  units  may  be  expected. 
This  difference  may  amount  to  20  kw.-hr.  per  short  ton  of  refuse. 

"  Most  of  the  above  results  are  confined  to  hand-fired  plants.  Such 
results  as  are  given  for  mechanically-charged  plants  indicate  that  these  do  not 
differ  greatly  from  results  obtained  with  the  hand-fired  top-charged  plants, 
and  that,  as  compared  with  bottom-charged  incinerators,  the  results  tabu- 
lated for  hand-fired  top-charged  plants  are  a  good  index  of  the  efficiency  of 
the  mechanically  charged  plant.  If  we  assume  steam  to  be  worth  3  cents  per 
100  lb.  and  electric  power  to  be  worth  1  cent  per  kw.-hr.,  then  we  have,  as 
the  value  per  ton  of  bottom  charging  over  top  charging,  the  following  results 
for  each  of  the  bases  taken  for  comparison: 

Cents  per  ton 

On  basis  of  evaporation 24 

On  basis  of  saving  in  coal 15 . 6 

On  basis  of  electrical  output 20 

Average 19 . 9 

"  It  must,  however,  be  remembered  that,  except  for  the  results  based  on 
the  annual  saving  in  coal,  the  results  are  based  chiefly  on  test  runs  and  not  on 
everyday  working  conditions.  In  view  of  this  fact,  the  writer  believes  the 
value  of  hand-firing  in  bottom-charged  plants  over  top-charged  plants  is  not 
generally  over  13  to  15  cents  per  ton.  This  is  particularly  true  because,  in 
steam  plants  using  refuse  for  fuel,  it  is  the  minimum  power  developed  that 
determines  the  true  rating,  and  it  is  only  in  works  where  a  considerable  por- 
tion of  steam  is  raised  in  coal-fired  boilers  that  the  irregularities  in  the  fuel 
value  of  refuse  can  be  somewhat  reduced.  The  saving  in  coal  should  be  a 
good  index  of  the  value  of  the  refuse  as  fuel  in  such  works.  This  element  of 
value  in  bottom-charging  over  toi>charging  applies  only  where  steam  is  val- 
uable. 

"  These  various  points  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

"  (1)  Cleanliness:  Mechanical  charging  offers  the  greatest  opportimity 
for  cleanliness,  within  and  about  the  plant,  of  any  type  of  incinerator,  and 
causes  no  more  nuisance  to  the  community. 

"  (2)  Construction:  A  mechanically-charged  incinerator,  other  things 
being  equal,  will  cost  about  $125  per  ton  of  rated  capacity  more  than  a  bottom- 
charged  incinerator.  This  is  equivalent  to  a  difference  of  about  2  cents  per 
ton  of  refuse  burned. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  349 

"  (3)  Operation:  By  using  a  mechanical-charging  device,  about  one-fifth 
of  a  ton  of  refuse  per  man-hour  can  be  handled  more  than  with  hand-firing  in 
bottom-charged  incinerators.  This  is  equivalent  to  about  5  cents  per  ton  of 
refuse  burned.  A  mechanically-charged  plant  may  cost  from  1  to  2  cents 
more  per  ton  for  repairs  than  the  bottom-charged  plant. 

"  (4)  Value  of  Output:  There  is  little  difference  in  the  value  of  the  clinker 
from  the  different  types  of  incinerators.  The  useful  heat  energy  from  the 
hand-fired  bottom-charged  plants  is  worth  from  13  to  15  cents  per  ton  of 
refuse  burned  more  than  the  useful  heat  energy  from  mechanically-charged 
incinerators. 

"  Within  the  range  of  capacities  of  the  plants  investigated  (say  up  to 
100  tons  daily  capacity),  and  in  communities  where  steam  has  a  distinct 
value,  the  evidence  presented  indicates  that  hand-fired  bottom-charged 
incinerators  are  the  most  economical  type.  In  communities  where  steam 
raising  is  not  of  prime  importance,  or  where  power  cannot  be  readily  mar- 
keted, mechanical  charging  has  many  advantages.  Some  of  these  cannot  be 
expressed  in  terms  of  money  value.  Thus,  for  each  community,  the  controlling 
factors  must  be  determined,  and  the  type  of  incinerator  best  adapted  to  these 
conditions  must  be  selected. 

"  It  is  only  fair  to  state,  however,  that  special  devices  for  charging  high- 
temperature  incinerators  are  a  comparatively  recent  development  in  refuse 
incineration,  and  have  not  yet  been  developed  to  the  same  extent  to  which 
hand-charging  has  been  carried.  The  facts  that  the  sudden  fall  of  a  consider- 
able charge  of  refuse  may  be  received  on  a  drying  hearth  at  the  back  of  the 
furnace  and  thus  kept  from  submerging  the  burning  mass  on  the  fire-grate 
proper,  and  that  the  grade  of  refuse  may  be  kept  uniform  even  in  the  tub-fed 
type  of  plant,  by  taking  special  care  to  fill  each  container  with  the  proper 
proportions  of  each  constituent  of  refuse,  leads  one  to  believe  that  the  amount 
of  useful  heat  in  the  refuse  may  be  developed  in  mechanically-charged  plants 
to  more  nearly  the  same  extent  to  which  it  is  developed  by  hand-firing.  Add 
to  this  the  consideration  that  mechanical  charging  permits  of  greater  clean- 
liness in  operation  and  compels  the  use  of  skilled  labor,  and  it  becomes  evident 
that,  for  some  conditions,  mechanical  chargiug  may  be  the  more  advanta- 
geous." 

Since  1908,  when  the  foregoing  account  was  prepared,  mechanical 
devices  for  charging  refuse  have  been  further  improved.  Particu- 
larly, due  to  the  development  of  mechanical  clinkering,  the  efficiency 
of  incineration  with  mechanical  charging  has  been  increased,  so  that 
at  present  the  temperatures  appear  to  exceed  those  of  hand-charging, 
because  the  time  required  for  opening  and  closing  the  furnace  doors 
and  the  inrush  of  cold  air  is  reduced  to  a  minimum. 

The  most  recent  devices  for  charging  refuse  into  high-temperature 
incinerators  are  those  at  Clifton,  Paterson,  Atlanta,  Savannah,  and 
San  Francisco.  At  the  Clifton  plant  the  wagons  dump  into  a  bin 
from  which  the  refuse  is  raked  into  a  rectangular  box,  set  just  below  the 
floor  level.     When  this  box  is  full  it  can  be  pushed  by  a  hydraulic  ram 


350    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


into  the  furnace,  several  feet  above  the  grate.  When  the  box  is 
inside  the  furnace,  its  bottom  is  withdrawn  and  the  charge  falls  on 
the  grate  below.     The  device  is  illustrated  in  Fig.  96. 

In  the  other  four  plants,  the  refuse  is  discharged  into  deep  storage 
pits  at  the  ground  level.  Electrically-operated  grab-buckets  lift  the 
refuse  from  the  pit  and  carry  it  to  charging  containers  above  the  fur- 
nace, one  of  which  is  set  over  each  grate.     A  charge  is  delivered  to 

the  grate  by  opening  a  hydraulically- 
operated  sliding  door  in  the  bottom  of 
the  container.  This  apparatus  is  illus- 
trated in  Fig.  86. 

Mechanical  devices  for  charging 
have  also  been  operated  successfully 
on  garbage  furnaces;  the  one  designed 
by  Lewis  is  illustrated  in  Figs.  87  and  88. 
The  wagons  discharge  garbage  into  a 
steel  hopper  set  below  the  delivery  floor. 
This  hopper  must  have  sufficient  capac- 
ity for  one  day's  delivery.  A  pusher 
or  ra,m  works  back  and  forth  at  the 
bottom,  and  at  each  forward  stroke 
discharges  a  small  quantity  of  garbage 
on  the  drying  hearth.  The  rate  of  charg- 
ing can  be  varied  by  changing  the  speed 
of  the  eccentric. 

3.  Air  Supply. — As  already  computed,  air  must  be  supplied  for  the 
combustion  of  mixed  refuse  at  a  rate  of  from  4.5  to  6.0  lb.  per  pound 
of  refuse.  For  burning  garbage  (not  mixed  refuse)  with  coal,  however, 
the  quantity  of  air  depends  on  the  nature  of  the  garbage  and  the  quan- 
tity of  coal  burned  with  it.  If  we  assume  the  garbage  to  contain  5% 
of  carbon,  1%  of  hydrogen,  4%  of  oxygen,  and  sufficient  moisture  to 
require,  for  odorless  combustion,  400  lb.  of  coal  per  ton  of  garbage, 
then  the  following  theoretical  quantity  of  oxygen  is  required  per 
pound  of  garbage.  (See  pages  315  and  316  for  method  of  calculation 
and  also  Table  94.) 

Oxygen  required  to  burn  the  carbon 2.67x0.05  =0.13  lb. 

Oxygen  required  to  burn  the  hydrogen. .. 8 . 0    XO.005        =0.04  lb. 
Oxygen  required  to  burn  the  coal 2.56  XO. 8  XO. 2  =0.43  lb. 


Fig.  86.— Grab-bucket. 

(From  Engineering  News.) 


Therefore,  the  required  oxygen  per  pound  of  garbage =0 .  60  lb. 

In  the  first  line  of  this  computation,  2.67  is  the  weight,  in  pounds, 
of  oxygen  required  to  burn  1  lb.  of  carbon  to  CO2,  and  the  figure  0.05 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


351 


Fig.  87. — Lewis  and  Katchen  Garbage  Furnace  with   Automatic  Charging 

Device. 


Sun^lag  Floor  j      j< 


-14  OJ^ 


LONGITUDINAL  SECTION 


Fig.  88. — Lewis  and  I^tchen  Garbage  Furnace  with  Automatic  Charging 

Device. 


352     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

is  the  quantity  of  carbon  in  1  lb.  of  garbage.     The  product,  2.67  XO.05, 

is  thus  the  weight  of  oxygen,  in  pounds,  required  to  burn  the  carbon 

in  the  garbage.     In  the  second  line,  8.0  is  the  weight,  in  pounds,  of 

oxygen  required  to  burn  1  lb.  of  hydrogen  to  H2O,  and  the  figure 

0.005  is  the  quantity  of  hydrogen  in  1  lb.  of  garbage  corrected  by  the 

equivalent  as  hydrogen  of  the  quantity  of  oxygen  in  the  garbage, 

0.04 
thus  0.01—^=0.005.     In  the  third  line,  the  first  figure  (2.56)   is 

the  weight,  in  pounds,  of  oxygen  to  burn  1  lb.  of  carbon  to  CO2, 
the  second  figure  (0.8)  is  the  assumed  quantity  of  carbon  in  1  lb.  of 
coal,  and  the  third  figure  (0.2)  is  the  quantity  of  coal  (400  lb.  per 
ton)  required  per  pound  of  garbage. 

As  air  contains  23%  of  oxygen,  by  weight,  this  means  that  2.61  lb. 
of  air  are  theoretically  required  to  burn  each  pound  of  garbage  and 
the  0.2  lb.  of  coal.  As  an  excess  of  air,  amounting  to  from  50  to  100%, 
is  necessary,  the  actual  quantities  supplied  will  be  from  3.9  to  5.2  lb. 
of  air  per  pound  of  garbage  (not  mixed  refuse).  The  volume  occupied 
by  this  quantity  of  air  depends  on  the  temperature  of  the  gases  of 
combustion  at  the  part  of  the  furnace  under  consideration. 

There  are  five  methods  of  supplying  air  to  the  fire : 

a.  Natural  or  chimney  draft;    which  is  the  utilization  of  the 

difference  in  weight  between  the  warm  products  of  combus- 
tion and  the  cooler  and  heavier  outside  air; 

b.  Forced  draft  produced  by  a  steam  jet  set  in  or  near  the  ashpit; 

c.  Forced  draft  by  fans  or  blowers; 

d.  Induced  draft  by  a  steam  jet  or  fan  placed  at  the  base  of  a 

chimney. 

e.  Combination  of  forced  and  induced  draft. 

a.  Natural  Draft. — Natural  draft  has  the  advantage  of  sim- 
plicity and  ease  of  maintenance,  as  there  are  no  moving  parts 
needing  repair,  and  there  is  a  minimum  of  exposed  parts.  As  the 
pressure  of  natural  draft  which  can  be  provided  economically  is  lim- 
ited, and  generally  has  not  exceeded  1  in.  of  water  in  the  ashpit,  it  is 
seldom  used  in  refuse  incinerators.  With  it,  the  pressure  over  the 
fire  near  the  furnace  door  is  generally  less  than  atmospheric,  and  it  is 
difficult  to  prevent  the  entrance  of  cold  air  from  the  outside.  With 
forced  draft,  a  slight  excess  of  pressure  can  be  maintained  inside  the 
furnace,  so  that  no  cold  air  can  enter. 

If  the  natural  push  up  a  chimney  due  to  the  heavier  cold  air 
outside  is  used  to  supply  air  to  a  number  of  units,  the  distribution  of 
the  draft  through  the  furnaces  is  not  easily  controlled.  Nevertheless, 
at  present,  it  is  likely  that  natural  draft  will  be  preferred  for  small 


INCINEIiATION  OF  REFUSE  353 

garbage  furnaces,  because  of  its  simplicity  and  the  fact  that  its  cost 
is  less  than  for  artificial  draft  production.  Natural  draft  is  in  fact 
the  method  used  most  frequently  for  supplying  air  to  garbage  furnaces. 

The  necessary  height  and  cross-section  of  a  chimney,  to  pass  a 
given  weight  of  air  through  a  furnace  in  unit  time,  may  be  calculated 
by  several  formulas,  but  the  results  should  always  be  checked  by  those 
of  successful  practice. 

A  rational  theory  of  the  action  of  the  chimney  was  first  worked 
out  by  P6clet  and  developed  by  Rankine.  Based  on  these  studies, 
Kent*  offers  the  following  formula,  in  which  the  constants,  7.64  and 
7.95,  refer  to  the  densities  of  the  outside  air  and  the  cbjmney  gases, 
respectively: 

H.         ^ 

7.64    7.95 

in  which  H  is  the  height  of  the  chimney,  in  feet;  P  is  the  pressure  in  the 
ashpit,  expressed  as  inches  of  water;  To  is  the  absolute  temperature  of 
the  outside  air;  and  Tc  is  the  average  absolute  temperature  of  the 
chimney  gases,  both  in  degrees,  Fahrenheit.  Using  this  formula,  a 
typical  computation  for  a  chimney  for  a  garbage  furnace  is  as  follows : 

1.  Assumptions: 

Temperature  of  air  {Ta) 70°  Fahr. 

Temperature  of  chimney  gases  (Tc) 600°  Fahr. 

Rate  of  burning  garbage 24  tons  per  day 

Quantity  of  chimney  gases  per  poimd  of  garbage 5.0  lb. 

Velocity  of  gases  up  chimney 10.0  ft.  per  sec. 

Pressure  of  draft  in  ashpit  (P) 0.5  in.  of  water 

Weight  per  cubic  foot  of  chimney  gases 0.0394  lb. 

2.  Height  of  Chimney: 

^^^^,2.5  ft. 

7.64  _  7.95 
530     1060 

3.  Cross-sectional  Area  of  Chimney: 

Volume  of  gases     2000X5        1        1      „ 
^'''=       Velocity        =^:5^>'3"^O^i5=^-^  '^-  ^*' 

The  cross-sectional  area  of  the  chimney  at  the  top  is  that  of  a 
circle  with  a  diameter  of  3.0  ft.  As  a  general  rule,  the  velocity  of  the 
up-draft  should  not  exceed  10  ft.  per  second. 

b.  Forced  Draft. — The  advantages  of  forced  draft  depend  on  the 
character  of  the  refuse.     The  more  compact  the  refuse,  the  more  dust 

*  "  Mechanical  Engineers'  Pocket-Book,  7th  Edition,"  p.  732. 


354    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

and  moisture  it  contains,  and  the  more  necessary  it  will  be  to  force 
air  through  the  mass,  in  order  to  supply  sufficient  oxygen  for  the 
required  rapid  combustion.  A  large  proportion  of  fine  ashes  in  the 
refuse,  therefore,  will  demand  a  forced  draft,  when  rubbish  and  gar- 
bage alone  would  not  require  it.  In  all  cases,  however,  a  forced  draft 
will  increase  the  temperature  of  combustion.  All  ironwork  exposed  to 
excessive  heat,  therefore,  must  be  protected  in  some  way. 

Either  fans  or  steam  jets  are  used  for  artificial  draft  in  practically 
all  high-temperature  refuse  incinerators.  There  has  been  much  dis- 
cussion over  the  merits  of  these  two  methods.  Present  practice  favors 
the  fan  draft,  because  of  the  tendency  to  get  higher  pressures  in  the 
ashpit.  The  various  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  two 
methods  are  summarized  briefly  below. 

Steam  jets  use  up  more  steam  than  fans.  A  steam  jet  will  require 
from  10  to  15%  of  the  total  steam  produced  by  the  burning  refuse; 
a  fan  will  not  require  more  than  10%,  more  often  only  5%,  of  the  steam. 
During  the  test  of  the  Milwaukee  incinerator,  the  power  for  fan 
engines,  hoisting  cranes,  and  electric  lights  required  8.3%  of  the  total 
steam  output. 

Steam  jets  are  cheaper  than  fans,  are  more  easily  arranged,  require 
less  attendance,  and  are  less  expensive  to  maintain.  However,  they 
are  not  as  accessible  for  repairs,  because  they  are  generally  placed  in 
the  ashpit  of  the  furnace. 

A  steam  jet  cannot  operate  without  steam,  whereas  a  fan  may  be 
driven  by  an  electric  motor.  In  a  small  plant,  where  the  quantity  of 
steam  is  not  always  sufficient,  this  difference  is  important.  A  steam 
jet  cannot  be  used  economically  to  produce  a  high-pressure  draft.  Its 
ordinary  working  limit  is  a  pressure  of  3  in.  of  water  in  the  ashpit. 
The  steam  passing  through  the  grate  with  the  draft  from  a  steam  jet 
prevents  the  clinker  from  adhering  to  the  grate,  which  makes  clinker- 
ing  easier.  This  advantage,  however,  is  not  important  with  modern 
appliances  for  mechanical  clinkering.  The  steam  draft  has  a  ten- 
dency to  make  the  clinker  more  porous  and  friable,  and  thus  less 
suitable  for  concrete  and  other  useful  purposes. 

Maxwell*  states  that  with  steam  jets  "  a  steadier  steam  pressure 
is  maintained  and  more  steam  per  ton  of  refuse  is  available  at  the 
engines."  On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  J.  A.  Robertson,  Chief  Engineer  of 
the  Electricity  Works  and  Refuse  Destructors  at  Greenock,  Scotland, 
favors  the  use  of  the  fan  draft.  The  effect  of  the  steam  in  the  draft 
has  been  well  stated  by  Lord  Kelvin  and  Professor  Barr,  after  experi- 
ments at  the  Oldham  destructor  works,  in  the  following  extract  from 
their  report: 

♦  "  The  Removal  and  Disposal  of  Town  Refuse,"  by  W.  H.  Maxwell,  London,  1898. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  355 

"  The  steam  is  condensed  by  contact  with  the  cold  air  which  it  injects, 
and  the  water  thus  produced  is  re-evaporated  in  contact  with  the  furnace  bars, 
keeping  down  their  temperature.  In  this  way  the  hfe  of  the  furnace  bars  is 
greatly  prolonged.  A  more  important  function  is,  however,  fulfilled  by  the 
steam.  In  coming  into  contact  with  the  incandescent  fuel  it  is  decomposed, 
the  hydrogen  being  freed,  while  the  oxygen  combines  with  the  carbon  in  the 
fuel  to  form  carbon  monoxide. 

"  This  decomposition  of  the  water  is  effected  by  heat  abstracted  from  the 
lower  part  of  the  fire,  where  it  can  be  of  comparatively  small  value  for  the  cre- 
mation of  the  distillate. 

"  The  water  gas  (hydrogen  and  carbon  monoxide)  passes  upwards  to  be 
burned  by  the  excess  air  which  it  meets  over  the  fire,  thus  serving  to  increase 
the  temperature  which  would  otherwise  exist  at  the  meeting  of  the  products 
of  combustion  with  the  gases  distilled  from  the  raw  material." 

Tabulations  have  been  compiled  by  Goodrich  of  tests  made  at 
refuse  incinerators  using  both  types  of  forced  draft.  He  concludes 
that  a  greater  quantity  of  CO 2  in  the  flue  gases  results  from  the  steam- 
jet  blast,  and  therefore  indicates  better  combustion. 

Many  thorough  tests  have  been  made,  also,  with  the  fan  blast. 
From  these  it  seems  probable  that  the  use  of  high-draft  pressures, 
giving  higher  burning  efficiencies,  will  be  preferred  in  the  future, 
and,  therefore,  that  fan  draft  will  be  used  more  generally  on  this 
account.  With  very  dry  combustible  refuse,  steam  (possibly  exhaust 
steam)  let  into  the  ashpits  might  tend  to  preserve  the  grates  without 
affecting  materially  the  other  portions  of  the  fire  and  furnace. 

It  is  well  to  place  the  exhaust  so  that  all  fumes  given  off  on  the 
drying  hearth  will  pass  over  the  hot  fire  before  entering  the  flue. 
The  forced  draft,  with  a  tightly  closed  ashpit,  should  be  equal  to  at 
least  1  in.  of  water  column.  In  Hamburg  the  pressures  vary  from 
2  to  4  in. 

It  is  claimed  that  fan  draft  can  be  used  to  suppress  dust  in  the 
building,  by  drawing  the  air  supply  for  the  fan  from  the  firing  and 
clinkering  rooms.  Obviously,  by  this  method,  some  of  the  dust  and 
smoke  are  drawn  away  from  the  operators  and  forced  through  the 
fire  to  the  chimney.  In  actual  practice,  however,  the  effect  is  not 
great,  because  the  quantity  of  air  required  for  combustion  is  not 
large  compared  with  the  quantity  naturally  entering  the  building. 

There  is  a  variety  of  steam  jets,  fans,  and  blowers  in  the  market. 
A  section  through  the  steam  jet  used  in  the  incinerator  at  Westmount, 
is  shown  in  Fig.  89.  The  engine-driven  fan  at  the  incinerator  at 
West  New  Brighton,  is  shown  in  Fig.  90.  Fans  can  be  driven  by 
steam  engines,  turbines,  or  electric  motors.  Steam  turbines  are  used 
at  Atlanta  and  Savannah. 


356     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

c.  Induced  Draft. — Induced  draft  is  not  used  frequently.  After 
the  incinerator  at  Atlanta  went  into  operation,  it  was  found  that  the 
chimney  was  not  large  enough  to  carry  away  the  furnace  gases. 
The  draft,  therefore,  had  to  be  increased.  This  was  done  by  the  use 
of  a  fan  placed  at  the  base  of  the  chimney. 

The  combination  of  induced  and  forced  draft  incidentally  increases 
the  capability  of  the  plant  and  the  flexibility  of  the  furnace  to  take 
care  of  refuse  of  different  characteristics  due  to  seasonal  variations. 
This  increased  draft,  however,  increases  the  velocity  through  the 
chimney,  so  that  provision  must  be  made  for  preventing  the  escape  of 
paper  and  dust  at  the  chimney  top.     This  can  be  done  if  paper  and 


Approximate  Scale 


ELEVATION 


Fig.  89. — Steam-jet  Blower,  Westmount  Incinerator. 

A  blower  is  placed  in  the  ashpit  beneath  the  grates  in  each  division  of  the  furnace  cell. 

dust  are  caught  in  the  dust  chambers  before  reaching  the  induced-draft 
fan. 

d.  Temperature. — Of  great  importance  is  the  question  of  the  tem- 
perature of  the  air  as  it  enters  the  ashpits.  In  many  small  plants, 
particularly  garbage  furnaces,  the  air  supplied  is  at  the  atmospheric 
temperature.  In  the  larger  modern  incinerators,  the  air  is  pre- 
heated to  temperatures  as  high  as  400°  Fahr.  The  advantage  of  a  hot 
air  supply  for  all  combustion  processes  is  now  generally  recognized, 
especially  if  the  added  temperature  is  obtained  by  heat  which  would 
otherwise  be  wasted  and  lost. 

There  are  several  special  advantages  in  pre-heated  air  when 
burning  refuse.  If  the  refuse  has  a  high  content  of  moisture,  a  hot- 
air  supply  assists  in  its  evaporation.     Mixed  refuse  in  America  does 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


357 


not  ordinarily  contain  more  than  20  or  25%  of  combustible.      Air 
at  a  temperature  of,  say,  350°  Fahr.,  occupies  almost  twice  as  much 


Fig.  90. — Electrically-driven  Fan,  West  New  Brighton  Incinerator. 


space  as  air  at  70°  Fahr.  On  this  account  it  will  saturate  the  mass 
of  refuse  more  thoroughly,  and  supply  oxygen  to  all  the  available 
combustible  matter. 


358     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  air  supply  may  be  pre-heated  by  any  of  several  methods,  as 
follows : 

A  battery  of  tubes  may  be  built  into  the  outlets  from  the  boiler 
or  the  main  flue.  The  waste  gases  are  passed  through  these  tubes, 
and  the  air  is  forced  around  the  outside  and  takes  up  heat  on  the  way 
to  the  ashpit.  Leask  states  that,  in  such  a  battery,  the  rate  of  trans- 
mission of  heat  from  the  gases  to  the  air  is  about  1000  B.t.u.  per  hour 
per  square  foot  of  tube  surface,  and  that  in  this  way  the  temperature 
of  the  air  can  be  raised  about  one-quarter  of  a  degree  for  every  square 
foot  of  heating  surface.  Temperatures  as  high  as  400°  Fahr.  can  be 
thus  obtained. 

Another  arrangement  is  to  drop  the  hot  clinkers  into  a  chamber 
below  the  ashpit  and  pass  the  air  supply  over  this  clinker  on  its  way  to 
the  ashpit,  as  done  at  West  New  Brighton,  Atlanta,  and  elsewhere.  In 
these  plants  the  main  part  of  the  pre-heating  is  done  through  a  battery 
of  tubes  placed  in  the  main  flue.  Heat  is  saved  and  retained  for  use 
in  the  furnace  by  thus  abstracting  it  from  the  hot  clinkers. 

A  third  method  of  pre-heating  the  air,  which  has  been  used  in 
many  of  the  Horsfall  plants,  is  by  forcing  it  through  cast-iron  boxes 
forming  the  side- walls  of  the  fire-grates.  This  not  only  pre-heats  the 
air,  but  also  keeps  the  cast-iron  grate-curbs  cool,  and  assists  the  process 
of  clinkering.  This  method  is  used  at  the  refuse  incinerator  at  Green- 
ock, Scotland.  Mr.  Robertson,  Chief  Engineer,  reports,  however,  that 
he  cannot  pre-heat  the  air  to  more  than  180°  Fahr.  He  also  states 
that 

"  A  further  disadvantage  is  that,  as  the  amount  of  heat  then  imparted 
to  the  air  supply  depends  on  the  temperature  of  the  furnace  near  the  grate 
level,  the  temperature  of  the  draft  air  is  lowest  immediately  after  charging,  i.e., 
just  at  the  time  when  high  temperature  is  most  needed  to  dry  the  refuse  and 
to  commence  combustion." 

These  comments  are  obviously  proper,  and  modern  plants  almost 
always  have  pre-heaters  with  special  tubes  beyond  the  boiler.  The 
pre-heater  at  Milwaukee,  set  just  at  the  outlet  from  the  boiler,  is 
shown  in  Fig.  91.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  tubes  through  which 
the  hot  gases  pass  are  set  vertically  above  a  large  space  into  which  the 
dust  from  the  tubes  can  be  blown  out  and  removed.  Some  such 
arrangement  is  necessary,  if  the  maximum  rate  of  heating  is  to  be 
maintained. 

The  value  of  pre-heating  the  air  consists  in  reducing  the  volume  of 
waste  heat,  promoting  more  efficient  combustion,  and  increasing  the 
temperature  of  the  furnace,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  "  heat  balances  " 
given  later. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


359 


The  importance  of  pre-heating  and  properly  proportioning  the 
quantity  of  the  air  supply  cannot  be  overestimated.  An  appreciable 
loss  of  efficiency  is  found  both  with  a  deficiency  and  with  an  excess 
of  air. 

e.  Chimney. — In  the  actual  construction  of  refuse  incinerators  and 
garbage  furnaces,  a  chimney  is  always  required  to  conduct  the  gases  of 


Fig.  91. — Boiler  and  Pre-heater,  Milwaukee  Incinerator. 


combustion  well  above  any  neighboring  buildings.  Consequently,  a 
certain  natural  draft  is  provided.  This  chimney  must  be  of  ample 
capacity  to  carry  away  the  furnace  gases  without  creating  a  back 
pressure,  and  it  should  be  too  large  rather  than  too  small.  Therefore, 
in  practice,  a  combination  of  forced  draft  and  natural  draft  is  used  in 
refuse  incinerators,  and  only  natural  draft  in  garbage  furnaces. 
Table  108  shows  the  height,  diameter,  etc.,  of  the  chimneys  in  use  at 
various  plants. 


360    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Table  108. — Height,  Diameter,  and  Cross-sectional  Area 
OF  Incinerator  Chimneys 


Chimney 

Rated 

Area  of 

capacity. 

Top 

cross- 

Location  of  plant 

in  tons 

Diam- 

internal 

section 

Type  of  draft 

per  24 

Height 

eter, 

cross- 

per 

hours 

in 

sectiona! 

10  tons 

feet 

in 

feet 

area, in 

!  of  rated 

square 

capacity. 

feet 

in  square 
feet 

American: 

West  New  Brighton. .  .  , 

120 

136.5 

7.5 

23.7 

1.98 

Fan 

Clifton,  N.  Y 

90 
300 

134 
154 

10 

19.6 

78.5 

2.16 
2.61 

.. 

Milwaukee,  Wis 

Seattle,  Wash 

60 

80 

6 

29.1 

4.8 

Steam-jet  blower 

Atlanta,  Ga 

250 

130 

60 

120 

150 
150 
150 
175 

8.5 
6.5 
6.5 
9 

56.0 
33.2 
33.2 
56.0 

2.24 
4.4 
5.5 
4.66 

Double  fan 

Fan 

Turbine  blower 

Fan 

Savannah,  Ga 

Paterson,  N.  J 

San  Francisco,  Cal 

Montgomery,  Ala 

60 

100 

4 

12.6 

2.1 

Steam-jet  blower 

Vancouver,  B.  C 

50 

120 

Fan 

Westmount,   Que. 

(Meldrum) 

50 

No  sepaj 

150 
ate  chii 

6 
nney. 

28.3 
Uses  F 

2.8 
ower   plar 

Steam-jet  blower 
t  chimney 

Westmount  (Heenan) .  . 

Halifax,  N.  S 

50 
180 
500 

115 
175 
150 

6 

7.5 
11 

28.3 
95.0 

5.7 
1.9 

Fans 
Natural  draft 

Toronto,  Ont 

Havana,  Cuba 

English  : 

Hull  Municipal  Corp'n. 

90 

110 

7.5 

44.2 

4.9 

Steam-jet  blower 

Leamington      Muncipal 

Corporation 

25 

90 

5 

19.6 

7.8 

11                It 

Liversedge    Urban   Dis- 

trict Council 

13 

90 

3.5 

9.6 

7.4 

" 

Lowestoft        Municipal 

Corporation 

28 

120 

6.5 

33.2 

11.9 

11                11 

Colne 

18 

210 

6 

28.3 

15.7 

Fan 

Lytham  Urban  District 

Council 

10 

50 

3.75 

11.00 

11.0 

Steam-jet  blower 

Moss   Side   Urban    Dis- 

trict Council 

26 

90 

5 

19.6 

7.5 

11                11 

Ramsgate        Municipal 

Corporation 

26 

120 

5 

19.6 

7.5 

11                 11 

Southport 

40 

180 

7 

38.5 

9.6 

11                 11 

Stockton-on-Tees 

20 

130 

4 

12.6 

6.3 

At  some  garbage  furnaces,  half-burned  paper  has  been  carried 
out  of  the  chimney  by  spurts  in  the  irregular  draft.  This  may  be 
prevented  by  placing  a  coarse  screen  at  the  base  of  the  chimney. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  361 

4.  Flues  and  Furnace  Accessories. — A  study  of  the  flues,  com- 
bustion chamber,  boilers,  and  chimney,  requires  a  determination  of  the 
quantity  of  gases  of  combustion  and  of  their  temperature,  in  order  to 
find  the  volume  to  be  provided  for.  The  weight  of  the  volatile 
products  or  waste  gases  can  be  ascertained  with  sufficient  accuracy  by 
adding  0.75  lb.  to  the  actual  quantity  of  air  supplied  in  the  draft. 
To  find  the  areas  of  flues,  the  quantity  of  air  to  be  supplied  may  be 
taken  at  twice  the  theoretical  quantity,  to  which  should  be  added  the 
0.75  lb.  of  volatile  products  from  the  refuse. 

The  volume  of  steam  that  can  be  developed  in  a  boiler  is  dependent 
on  the  calorific  value  of  the  refuse,  the  air  supply,  and  the  tempera- 
ture of  combustion.  These  elements  of  the  design  of  a  refuse  incin- 
erator can  be  studied  advantageously  by  using  a  "  Heat  Balance." 

The  temperature  of  combustion  and  the  probable  evaporation  in  the 
boiler  can  be  computed  as  follows:  The  mixed  refuse  is,  for  this  pur- 
pose, assumed  to  have  the  following  chemical  composition,  by  weight: 

Carbon 20% 

Hydrogen 3% 

Oxygen 6% 

Nitrogen 4% 

Ash,  etc 25% 

Water 42% 

Total 100% 

Total  available  British  thermal  units  per  poimd  =4296 
Air  required  for  combustion  per  poimd  of  refuse  =  3 . 1  lb. 
At  100%  excess,  this  is  equal  to : 6 . 2  lb. 

With  these  data,  we  may  now  make  a  heat  balance,  or  an  approxi- 
mate distribution  of  the  total  British  thermal  units  available  from  each 
pound  of  refuse  burned. 

Heat  Balance 

1.  Heat  required   for  the   evaporation   of    0.42  lb.   of  water, 

966X0.42 =  406  B.t.u. 

2.  Superheating  this  steam  1200°  Fahr.,  1200X0.35X0.42 =   176  B.t.u. 

3.  Loss  due  to  unburned  carbon  in  clinker  and  ash,  14,500  X 

0.05X0.25 =   182  B.t.u. 

4.  Heat  lost  in  the  hot  clinker.     Assume  an  average  temperature 

throughout  the  mass  of  500°  Fahr.  and  a  specific  heat  of 

0.2;  500X0.2X0.25 =     25  B.t.u. 

5.  Loss  in  radiation,  20% .  .  =  857  B.t.u. 

1646  B.t.u. 

6.  Heat   lost   in   dry   chimney  gases  after  leaving  pre-heater, 

6.2X550°X0.264 =  925  B.t.u. 

7.  Available  for  raising  steam,  calculated  by  difference =1725  B.t.u. 

Total  to  balance =4296  B.t  u. 


362     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

This  heat  balance,  of  course,  is  only  approximate,  and  it  would 
require  several  trials  to  obtain  accuracy,  as  it  is  based  on  several 
indeterminate  factors,  but  in  practice  one  calculation  will  often 
suffice.  The  assumption  that  the  steam  will  have  to  be  superheated 
to  1200°  may  be  corrected  after  computing  the  temperature  of  com- 
bustion, but  the  resulting  change  will  not  be  great  in  proportion  to 
the  radiation  losses. 

Under  these  assumptions,  the  evaporation  in  the  boiler,  from  and 
at  212°  Fahr.,  will  be, 

1725 

-777777  =1.79  lb.  of  water  per  pound  of  refuse. 

966 

For  determining  the  temperature  of  combustion,  the  specific  heat 
of  the  gases  of  combustion  must  be  ascertained;  this  may  be  done  as 
follows,  assuming  100%  excess  of  air: 

Weight  of  Gases  as  Products  of  Combustion  per  Pound  of  Refuse. — 

N:      (3.1 -0.714)  X2.00+0.04 =4.87  lb. 

CO2:  Since  12  lb.  of  C  give  44  lb.  of  CO2,  we  have  f|X0.20 =0.73  lb. 

r  Since  1  lb.  of  H  gives  9  lb.  of  H2O,  0.03.X9 =0.27  lb. 

H2O:      In  the  fuel =0.42  lb. 

i  16  lb.  of  O  give  18  lb.  of  H2O,  we  have  flXO.Oe =0.07  lb. 

O:     In  excess  air =0.71  lb. 

Total =7.07  lb. 

The  specific  heat  of  each  of  these  products  of  combustion  is  known, 
so  that  their  average  specific  heat  can  be  calculated. 

N  =0.244X4.87  =  1.19 
CO2=0.22  X0.73=0.16 
H2O=0.48  X0.76=0.36 
O      =0.217X0.71=0.15 

1.86 
=  Heat  required  to  raise  1  lb.  of  the  products  of  combustion  1°  Fahr. 

1  86 

Y7^  =0.264  =  specific  heat  of  products  of  combustion. 

The  heat  available  for  raising  the  temperature  of  the  gases  of  com- 
bustion is  equal  to  the  sum  of  Items  6  and  7  in  the  heat  balance, 
because  all  the  other  items  represent  heat  lost,  and  not  left  in  the 
products  of  combustion.  These  two  items  amount  to  2650  B.t.u. 
The  average  temperature  of  combustion  will  then  be 

2650 

-—=1420°  Fahr. 
1.86 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


363 


In  this  computation,  no  separate  account  has  been  taken  of  a  pre- 
heated air  supply.  The  assumption  is  here  made  that  the  pre-heating 
process  merely  keeps  a  certain  quantity  of  heat  in  the  furnace  and 
prevents  a  loss,  but  does  not  add  to  the  actual  available  heat  supply. 

A  pre-heated  air  supply  is  advantageous.  In  the  first  place  it 
brings  the  air  to  the  fuel  in  very  much  larger  volume  per  unit  weight. 
This  means  that  the  air  supply  permeates  the  refuse  more  thoroughly, 
and  the  oxygen  in  the  air  searches  out  the  carbon  and  hydrogen  in  the 
refuse  more  completely.  Furthermore,  the  heat  brought  to  the  fur- 
nace at  this  point  assists  in  driving  off  the  excess  moisture  of  the 
refuse,  thus  facilitating  combustion.  These  items  are  in  addition  to 
the  saving  of  heat  that  would  otherwise  be  lost  at  the  chimney. 

Mr.  Fetherston  prepared  a  heat  balance  for  the  mixed  refuse 
incinerated  at  West  New  Brighton  in  1907.  Table  109  gives  the 
results  of  his  investigation. 


Table  109. — Approximate  Heat  Balance  per  Pound  of  Mlxed  Refuse 

(From  paper  by  J.  T.  Fetherston,  Transactions,  Am.  Soc.  C.  E.,  Vol.  LX,  1908) 
Heat  values  in  British  thermal  units.     Estimated  temperatures 


Spring 


Summer 


Autumn 


Winter 


Year 


Sept.' 


Calorific  power  of  refuse 

Losses  due  to: 

Moisture 

Heat  in  dry  chimney  gases 

Unburned  carbon  in  clinker 

Unburned  carbon  in  ashes 

Heat  in  clinker 

Forced  draft 

Radiation,  etc 

Total  losses 

Net  useful  heat  to  boiler 

Equivalent  evaporation,  from  and  at 

212°  Fahr.  (useful  steam), in  pounds 

of  water  per  pound  of  mixed  refuse . 
Estimated  temperature  in  combus- 
tion chamber,  in  degrees,  Fahr.  .  .  . 

Moisture 

Ash 

Combustible 


4747 

184 

465 

266 

324 

55 

121 

949 

2364 

2383 


2.46 

2370° 

14.03% 

50.06 

35.91 


3477 

373 

407 

229 

380 

38 

106 

695 

2228 

1249 


1.29 

1710° 

28.86% 
39 .  74 
31.40 


3833 

363 

421 

232 

268 

44 

110 

767 

2205 

1628 


1.68 

1950° 

27.74% 

39.74 

32.52 


4358 

174 

443 

306 

468 

63 

115 

872 

2441 

1917 


1.98 

2140° 

13.11% 

52.72 

34.17 


4274 

259 

444 

252 

332 

54 

116 

855 

2312 

1962 


2.03 

2150° 

19.74% 

46.03 

34.23 


3265 

465 
395 
229 
380 
54 
103 
653 
2279 
986 


1.02 

1550° 

35.83% 

33.69 

30.48 


*  Average  calorific  values  for  summer  components  were  used  in  arriving  at  September 
results. 

Flues. — The  proper  area  of  flues  may  be  ascertained  by  proportion- 
ing the  temperatures  of  the  gases  from  the  1420°  Fahr.  at  the  fire  to 
the  assumed  550°  in  the  chimney.  The  weight  of  the  gases  as  prod- 
ucts of  combustion  was  found  to  be  7.07  lb.  per  pound  of   refuse. 


364     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  volume  occupied  by  the  total  weight  of  gases  at  the  computed 
temperature  can  be  determined  by  reference  to  Table  93. 

Combustion  Chamber. — A  combustion  chamber  is  usually  inserted 
between  the  grates  and  the  boiler  or  chimney.  It  serves  to  equalize 
and  steady  the  temperature  from  different  grates  as  well  as  to  afford 
time  for  complete  combustion  before  the  furnace  gases  reach  the 
comparatively  cold  surfaces  of  the  boiler  tubes  or  chimney  walls.  It 
also  serves  as  a  pocket  for  catching  dust. 

A  consideration  of  the  combustion  chamber  and  the  boiler  involves, 
not  only  the  estimation  of  the  available  heat  units  and  the  tempera- 
ture of  combustion,  but  also  the  question  of  dust.  When  burning 
mixed  refuse  under  a  forced  draft,  we  find  that  a  considerable  volume 
of  ash  dust  is  carried  away  from  the  fire  into  the  combustion  chamber 
and  flues. 

For  removing  dust  from  flue  gases  two  methods  have  been  used. 
The  first,  and  the  one  most  usually  applied,  depends  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  sedimentation  by  a  reduction  in  the  velocity  of  the  flue 
gases  below  the  suspension  point.  This  is  done  by  enlarging  the 
section  of  the  flue  through  the  combustion  chamber.  Then  a  large 
number  of  dust  particles  will  settle  out.  Storage  for  the  dust  thus 
collected  must  be  provided. 

At  the  Milwaukee  incinerator,  the  grates  are  set  on  each  side  of  a 
common  combustion  chamber.  The  gases  enter  the  latter  from  oppo- 
site sides,  and  so  tend  to  check  their  own  velocity.  Besides,  the 
velocity  is  further  reduced  by  an  enlargement  of  the  chamber.  To 
receive  the  settling  dust,  there  is  a  pit,  about  6  ft.  deep,  below  the 
combustion  chamber  proper,  from  which  the  dust  is  removed  by  hand. 

Even  with  these  devices,  some  dust  passes  along  and  settles  on 
the  boiler  tubes.  Therefore,  provision  must  also  be  made  for  blowing 
it  out  into  a  storage  space  below,  so  that  the  efficiency  of  the  boilers 
may  not  be  seriously  reduced.  At  Milwaukee  it  was  necessary  to 
remove  dust  from  the  combustion  chamber  pit  and  boiler  pit  at  inter- 
vals of  from  two  weeks  to  one  month.  The  main  fine  from  the  boilers 
to  the  stack  was  cleaned  twice  a  year. 

The  other  method  of  dust  removal  is  by  utilizing  centrifugal 
force.  At  the  base  of  the  chimney  the  gases  are  carried  at  the  usual 
high  velocity  around  a  circular  duct.  Centrifugal  force  throws  the 
dust  particles  to  the  circumference,  where  they  collect  in  pockets 
from  which  they  can  be  removed.  This  method  has  been  used  in 
England,  but  not  extensively.  It  is  open  to  the  objection  that  no 
dust  is  removed  from  the  gases  before  they  enter  the  boiler. 

In  some  incinerators,  especially  in  Germany,  the  combustion 
chamber,  in  serving  also  as  a  dust  chamber,  is  set  high  and  provided 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  365 

with  sloping  hopper  bottoms.  Tlio  dust  can  then  be  removed  into 
cars  through  a  sUding  door  at  the  bottom.  This  arrangement  is 
illustrated  in  Fig.  83. 

The  location,  size,  and  shape  of  the  combustion  chamber,  with 
relation  to  the  boiler,  is  important.  The  shape  must  insure  a  proper 
mixing  of  the  gases.  The  boiler  must  not  be  so  close  to  the  grates 
that  the  gases  of  combustion  will  be  cooled  before  complete  combustion 
has  taken  place.  The  length  of  time  required  for  the  combustion 
obviously  depends  on  the  character  of  the  refuse.  With  a  refuse  high 
in  volatile  matter,  or  of  low  calorific  value,  the  distance  to  the  boiler 
must  be  greater  than  would  be  required  for  a  highly  combustible 
refuse.  At  a  number  of  successful  plants,  and  with  average  refuse, 
the  boiler  entrance  is  set  about  10  ft.  from  the  grates.  The  value  of 
steam,  the  character  of  the  neighborhood,  and  the  topography  near 
the  plant,  should  also  be  given  consideration. 

In  garbage  furnaces,  the  combustion  chamber  has  often  been 
omitted,  and  in  some  cases  it  has  been  placed  so  far  from  the  grate 
proper  that  it  is  of  little  value.  "  This  occurs  when  long  garbage 
hearths  for  drying  are  set  between  the  coal  grate  and  the  outlet 
of  the  furnace.  In  some  few  plants,  the  drying  hearths  are  built  in 
small  units,  with  small  combustion  chambers  following  each 
hearth. 

5.  Clinker  and  Ash  Handling. — In  burning  mixed  refuse,  clinker 
and  ash  remain  after  the  combustion.  The  clinker  is  a  hard,  vitreous 
mass,  often  glowing,  and  may  cover  the  whole  grate  to  a  depth  of  as 
much  as  10  in.  If  the  clinker  door  is  wide  enough,  the  clinker  mass 
can  be  removed  as  one  body  from  the  grate.  If  the  door  is  narrower 
than  the  grate,  the  mass  must  be  broken  up  before  it  can  be  removed. 
Under  and  around  the  clinker  there  is  much  fine  and  coarse  ash. 
Some  of  this  falls  into  the  ashpit,  some  is  withdraw^n  with  the  clinker, 
and  some  should  be  left  on  the  grate  to  ignite  the  next  charge  of  refuse. 

"  Clinkering"  is  the  process  of  removing  clinker.  It  requires  both 
strength  and  skill.  To  promote  furnace  efficiency,  clinkering  must 
be  done  quickly,  in  order  to  reduce  to  a  minimum  the  inrush  of  cold 
air.  The  draft  should  be  shut  off  during  the  interval  and  put  on  a  few 
minutes  before  re-charging.  Quick  clinkering  also  reduces  the  time 
when  a  grate  is  out  of  service. 

During  the  test  of  the  Milwaukee  incinerator,  where  clinkering 
was  done  by  hand,  the  average  time  required  for  one  grate  was  about 
eight  minutes.  With  mechanical  clinkering,  as  at  Atlanta,  the 
material  can  be  removed  from  the  grate  in  less  than  one  minute. 
After  clinkering,  live  fires  should  be  left  on  top,  and  evenly  spread 
out  to  ignite  the  new  charge. 


366     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Garbage  alone,  burned  with  coal,  produces  very  little  clinker,  but 
mostly  fine  ash,  which  can  be  handled  with  shovel  and  wheelbarrow. 

Marked  improvements  in  apparatus  for  handling  clinker  and  ash 
have  been  developed  during  the  past  few  years,  largely  by  American 
engineers.  In  the  earlier  designs,  clinker  was  removed  from  the  grate 
by  hand  with  slice-bars,  rakes,  and  hoes,  and  placed  in  small  cars.  A 
good  deal  of  it  was  spilled  on  the  floor  and  had  to  be  shoveled  into  the 
cars.     This  process  was  also  laborious. 

The  first  improvement  was  to  get  the  clinker  automatically  into 
the  clinker  car  for  delivery  to  the  dump  or  crusher.  The  firing  floor 
was  built  high  enough  to  afford  a  good  basement,  and  a  trap  door  was 
set  into  it  just  in  front  of  the  clinker  door.  The  hot  clinker  could  thus 
be  dropped  from  the  grate  through  the  trap  door  into  the  car  below. 

At  West  New  Brighton,  and  elsewhere,  the  clinker  falls  into  a 
clinker  cooling  chamber  under  the  ashpit,  from  which  it  can  be  dis- 
charged by  gravity  into  cars. 

Subsequent  improvements  related  to  the  withdrawal  of  the  clinker 
from  the  fire.  This  is  now  accomplished  successfully  by  mechanical 
appliances,  so  that  the  labor  and  time  of  clinkering  is  reduced  to  a 
minimum.     Two  general  types  of  apparatus  are  in  use: 

1.  The   "  pull  "  method,  as  developed  at  Frankfort,  Germany, 

and  also  used  at  Savannah;  and 

2.  The  "  push  "  method,  as  developed  at  West  New  Brighton, 

and  also  used  at  Paterson,  Clifton,  and  Atlanta. 

The  method  in  use  at  Frankfort  requires  the  construction  of  a 
furnace  door  of  the  same  width  as  the  grate.  When  the  fire  is  build- 
ing up,  and  before  the  clinker  is  formed,  a  zigzag  iron  bar  is  set  into 
the  refuse,  about  6  in.  above  the  grate,  and  is  fused  into  the  clinker. 
The  bar  has  a  ring  or  handle  at  the  outer  end.  Just  before  clinkering, 
a  clinker  car,  opening  at  the  grate  level,  is  placed  in  front  of  the  clinker- 
ing door.  Then  this  door  is  opened  and  a  chain  from  a  traveling 
winch  is  hooked  to  the  handle  of  the  bar,  and,  by  the  winch,  the 
clinker  is  pulled  bodily  out  of  the  grate  into  the  clinker  car.  The 
bar  is  then  recovered  from  the  clinker  and  used  for  the  next  charge. 

A  similar  clinkering  device  is  used  at  Savannah,  where  the  clinker 
is  pulled  out  by  hydraulically-operated  cylinders,  instead  of  by  a 
winch.  This  method  requires  a  hard  clinker,  or  the  bar  will  not  take 
hold  but  pull  out.  The  clinker  bar  at  Savannah  is  made  like  a  hoe; 
the  clinker  is  rather  soft,  yet  there  is  but  little  ash.  The  bars  burn 
out  quite  frequently.  A  section  of  the  Savannah  incinerator  is  shown 
in  Fig.  100. 

The  "  push  "  method  of  clinkering  was  devised  at  West  New 
Brighton.     Two  hydraulically-operated  groups  of  cylinders  are  used. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  367 

The  upper  ones  are  fastened  to  the  movable  grates  of  the  furnace. 
The  grates  have  ridged  bars  bent  up  at  the  inner  end.  They  are 
pulled  out  from  under  the  clinker,  and,  in  passing,  the  bars  break  it  up. 
The  hot  clinkers  fall  into  a  cooling  chamber  below  the  grate,  which 
may  have  sufficient  capacity  for  several  charges.  The  lower  hydraulic 
cylinders  are  connected  with  heavy  cast-iron  pushers.  These  push 
the  clinker  out  of  the  cooling  chamber  into  the  clinker  car.  A  sec- 
tion of  the  Atlanta  incinerator,  where  this  method  is  used,  is  shown  in 
Fig.  92. 

6.  Dust. — An  important  and  annoying  feature  in  refuse  incinera- 
tion is  the  dust  about  the  plant  during  operation.  Dust  comes  from 
the  dumping  of  the  collection  wagons,  the  charging  and  clinkering  of 
the  fires,  and  the  disposal  of  the  clinker.  It  varies  in  quantity  w^ith  the 
character  of  the  refuse,  type  of  plant,  and  care  of  operation.  Refuse 
containing  greater  quantities  of  ash  will  produce  correspondingly 
more  dust,  particularly  on  warm  and  windy  days,  and,  in  some  cases, 
in  order  to  keep  it  down,  it  is  necessary  to  dampen  the  stored  refuse. 
Plants  operating  with  high-pressure  draft  make  more  dust  than  others 
(see  C.  2.  Hamburg),  and  the  conditions  are  aggravated  if  the  flues 
and  chimney  have  not  been  proportioned  correctly.  A  naturally 
somewhat  dirty  condition  is  still  further  increased  by  slovenly  and 
unclean  operation.  In  garbage  furnaces,  where  garbage  is  burned 
without  ashes,  and  under  natural  draft,  the  dust  problem  is  not  a 
serious  one. 

Thus  far,  only  two  precautions  have  been  taken  against  this 
nuisance.  One  quite  effective  remedy  is  a  liberal  use  of  water  on 
the  stored  refuse  and  on  the  hot  clinker  and  ashes  about  the  build- 
ing. The  other  consists  in  withdrawing  the  dusty  air  from  the  buildirg 
by  the  suction  of  the  forced-draft  apparatus.  This  is  a  usual  pro- 
cedure, and  is  commendable  because  it  secures  some  advantages 
which  otherwise  would  be  lost.  In  a  large  building,  however,  with 
many  windows,  doors,  and  other  openings^  unless  these  are  tempo- 
rarily closed,  the  desired  effect  is  considerably  reduced  by  large 
volumes  of  fresh  air  entering  and  other  air  leaving  the  building. 

7.  Ventilation. — The  ventilation  of  the  building  is,  of  course, 
associated  closely  with  the  dust  problem,  but  should  be  considered 
primarily  with  reference  to  the  workmen  operating  the  plant.  Their 
efficiency  and  comfort  require  sufficient  fresh  and  clean  air  and  a 
chance  to  be  protected  from  the  great  heat  of  the  furnace.  Plenty 
of  doors  and  windows,  affording  access  to  the  outside  air,  and  openings 
for  fresh  air  to  enter,  may  serve  the  purpose  of  ventilation  as  well  as  a 
mechanical  plant.  It  is  advisable  to  provide  for  ventilation  also 
through  the  roof.     Most  of  the  air  in  an  incinerator  building  is  warm, 


368     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

and  rises.  If  there  are  ventilators  in  the  roof,  the  hot  air  escapes 
through  them  and  fresh  cool  air  enters  below.  At  Milwaukee,  where 
the  incinerator  building  covers  about  10,000  sq.  ft.,  and  contains  four 
75-ton  furnaces,  six  18-in.  ventilators  have  now  been  built  in  the  roof. 
In  the  original  contract  only  two  were  included ;  the  others  were  built 
after  experience  in  operation  had  shown  that  they  were  advisable. 


Fig.  92. — General  Sectional  Arrangement  of  Atlanta  Incinerator. 


Although  odors  at  reduction  works  result  chiefly  from  the  processes 
of  reducing,  those  of  incinerating  plants  are  due  to  unskillful  oper- 
ation. The  material,  in  the  latter  case,  when  delivered  promptly 
as  mixed  refuse,  has  less  odor  than  garabge  alone,  yet  it  should  be 
burned  as  promptly  as  possible.  The  operation  of  the  furnace, 
including  attention  to  proper  drafts,  and,  especially,  attempts  to 
burn  wet  garbage  without  a  sufficient  quantity  of  combustible  rubbish, 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUFiE  369 

requires  skill  and  attention.  The  furnaces  should  be  fed  so  as  to 
create  continuously  a  high  temperature,  say,  at  least  1250°,  as  this 
should  prevent  any  possible  escape  of  odorous  gases  from  the  chim- 
neys. 

Some  of  the  odors,  for  the  removal  of  which  ventilation  is  neces- 
sary, arise  from  the  adhesion  of  fine  particles  of  partly  burned  organic 
matter  to  the  interior  walls  and  to  surfaces  of  apparatus,  and  to  cloth- 
ing, and  these  odors  persist  for  some  time.  The  most  effective  way  of 
removing  them  is  by  air  washing,  that  is,  by  playing  a  jet  of  com- 
pressed air  on  the  surfaces.  General  cleanliness  should  be  observed 
about  the  works. 

D.  TESTS 

During  the  last  few  years  a  number  of  tests  of  refuse  incinerators 
have  been  made,  the  results  of  which  have  been  published  in  America, 
in  England,  and  in  Germany.  These  tests  give  much  useful  informa- 
tion relative  to  the  principles  and  practice  of  incineration,  and,  taken 
consecutively,  mark  the  progress  that  has  been  made  in  the  art. 

When  studying  the  results  of  official  tests,  it  should  be  remem- 
bered that  at  such  times  specially  favorable  conditions  generally 
prevail.  The  men  operating  the  fires  are  keyed  up  to  a  working  rate 
sometimes  much  above  normal.  All  parts  of  the  plant  are  watched 
by  faithful  and  skilled  attendants,  and  the  result  is  frequently  above 
the  standard  of  everyday  operation.  The  readings  and  measurements 
made  during  tests,  however,  are  generally  accurate,  and  the  resulting 
computed  figures  may  be  used  as  an  indication  of  a  practicable  high 
rate  of  operation  attainable  under  the  best  conditions.  The  longer 
the  duration  of  the  test,  the  more  nearly  will  the  results  approach 
those  of  average  conditions  of  operation.  Summaries  of  the  tests 
of  the  incinerators  in  a  number  of  American  cities  are  given  in  Table 
110.  This  will  serve  for  purposes  of  comparison.  The  order  is  pro- 
gressive, and  indicates  plainly  the  improvement  in  the  quantity  of 
refuse  which  can  be  incinerated  per  square  foot  of  grate  area. 

The  first  complete  modern  test  made  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  was 
at  Westmount.  A  description  of  the  same  is  given  in  Engineering  News 
of  May  24,  1906.  It  was  found  that  our  mixed  refuse  was  well  suited 
for  incineration,  as  1  lb.  evaporated  1.36  lb.  of  water,  from  and  at  212° 
Fahr.  This  gave  encouragement  to  the  introduction  of  high-temper- 
ature incinerators  in  America.    Table  111  gives  a  summary  of  this  test. 

Two  years  later  a  test  was  made  at  West  New  Brighton  of  the  first 
large  high-temperature  refuse  incinerator  in  the  United  States.  It 
was  built  by  the  Power  Specialty  Company,  of  New  York.  The  results 
of  the  test  showed  that  1  lb.  of  mixed  refuse  evaporated  1.21  lb.  of 


370     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

TABLE  110.— Summary  of 


Composition  op  Refuse. 

Plant 

Date  of  test 

Kind  of  incinerator 

Gar- 

Fine 

Coal 

and 

cinders 

bage 

ash 

Westmount,  Que. .  . 

May  3,  1906 

f      Meldrum.                  \ 
I      Top-feed.                  / 

15. 

65. 

West  New  Brighton 

May  6,  1908 

f  Heenan  and  Froude.  \ 
1      Back-feed.                 / 

46.6 

21.7   1        8.3 

" 

May  8,  1908 

do. 

11.8 

79.5 

.. 

/       Jan.  1  to       V 
I  Dec.  31,  1911  J 

do. 

24.9 

68. 

Seattle,  Wash 

f   Mar.,  1908,  to  1 
I      Jan.,  1909      / 

f       Meldrum.                 '^ 
I      Front-feed.               / 

23.8 

43.6 

Milwaukee,  Wis.  .  . 

1     May  19-20,     \ 
I            1910            1 

Heenan.     Top-feed 

56.7 

30.6 

"        ... 

f     May  23-24,     1 
I    June  3,  1910    J 

.. 

29.7 

59.7 

"        ... 

1      May  26  to     1 
\    June  1,  1910    J 

" 

40.8 

41.0 

Savannah,  Ga 

Aug.  21-22,  1914 

Heenan 

45.0 

10 

Clifton,  N.  Y 

July  24,  1913 

" 

48.6 

14.2 

8.4 

"    

July  29,  1913 

22.0 

39.1 

23.0 

"    

Aug.  13,  1913 

" 

52.3 

14.2 

8.0 

"     

Aug.  15,  1913 

" 

24.3 

39.0 

22.7 

Halifax,  N.  S 

Mar.  8,  1913 

Sterling 

16 

75 

Paterson,  N.  J 

Dec.  1-6,  1913 

Heenan 

8 

78 

" 

Dec.  15-16,  1913 

" 

12 

72 

San  Francisco,  Cal. 

f      Sept.  4  to      "1 
I     Oct.  3,  1914    J 

" 

* 

Berkeley,  Cal 

Jan.  10-31,  1914 
Feb.  2-7,  1914 

Sterling 

Atlanta,  Ga 

Aug.  8,  1914 

Heenan 

48.5 

16.6 

Ridgewood,  N.  Y . . 

May  8,  1916 
May  10,  1916 
May  15,  1916 

Decarie 

70.9 
70.3 
70.1 

*  See  Table  117. 

water,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.     Table  112  gives  the  details  of  the  test. 
The  plant  is  described  in  Engineering  Record,  October  3,  1908. 

In  1910  a  test  was  made  of  the  incinerator  at  Milwaukee.  This 
was  the  largest  plant  of  its  kind,  its  capacity  being  300  tons  per  day. 
It  was  also  built  by  the  Power  Specialty  Company.  The  results  of 
three  tests  showed  that  1  lb.  of  mixed  refuse  evaporated  0.96,  1.34,  and 
1.45  lb.  of  water,  respectively,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.  Table  113 
gives  the  details.     A  description  of  the  tests  follows: 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


371 


Several  Tests  of  Incinerators 


Percentage  by 

Weight 

Glass 

and 

metals 

Rub- 

b'sh 

Manure 

5.0 

15 

8.5 

14.9 

3.4 

5.3 

7.1 

20.4 

12.2 

6.9 

6.8 

6.8 

3.8 

4.8 

13.4 

40.0 

5 

1.2 

10.5 

17.1 

2.8 

4.8 

7.9 

1.0 

8.5 

16  0 

2.7 

3.9 

7.4 

9 

14.0 

16 

.0 

34 

.9 
29.1 
29.7 
29.9 

Pounds  of 

refuse 

burned  per 

square  foot 

of  grate 

surface 

per 

hour 


58.7 


52 
49.7 


64 

80.6 
143.3 
139.0 
147.2 
147.2 

77.7 
100 
100 

102-111 
71 

77 

129 
69.7 
72.4 
64.1 


Evapora- 
tion. 
Pounds  of 
water  evap- 
orated per 
pound  of 
refuse, 
from  and  at 
212°  Fahr 


1.36 

1.41 
1.25 


0.96 

1.45 

1.34 
1.62 


1.26 
0.60 
1.01 

1.72 


Number  of 
Table 
giving 
details 


Authority 


111 

112 
112 
112 


113 
113 

113 

116 
115 
115 
115 
115 


117,118,119 

120 

120 

121 
122 
122 

122 


Engineering  News 
Engineering  Record 

Engineering  News 


Munic.  Eng.,  Dec.,  1914 
J.  T.  Fetherston 


H.  de  B.  Parsons 


Power  Specialty  Company 


Power  Specialty  Company 

Engineering  News 


Records  of  the  temperature  and  evaporation  were  taken  regularly 
throughout  all  the  tests.  Temperatures  in  the  combustion  chamber 
were  taken  every  fifteen  minutes  with  a  Bristol  electric  pyrometer, 
calibrated  to  read  to  2400°  Fahr.  The  points  of  the  instrument 
extended  through  the  sight  hole  in  the  door  of  the  combustion  cham- 
ber, and  about  5  ft.  into  it,  and  therefore  not  into  the  hottest  part. 
All  other  readings  were  taken  every  half  hour.  The  Bristol  pyrometer 
was   checked   against   three   other   high-temperature   recorders,   and 


372    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

TABLE  111. — Summary  OP  Test  of  Westmount  Refuse  Incinerator,  1906 

Duration  of  test 8  hrs.  32  min. 

Number  of  cells 3 

Total  grate  area 75  sq.  ft. 

B.  &  W.  boiler  heating  surface 2,197  sq.  ft. 

Refuse  consumed  (composition  of  waste  material) : 

Garbage,  manure,  and  leaves 15% 

Ashes  and  unburned  (anthracite)  coal,  cinders,  etc 65% 

Iron,  wood,  bottles,  tins,  leather,  etc 5% 

i     Rubbish,  including  paper,  branches,  old  furniture,  etc 15% 

Total 100% 

Weights: 

Unscreened  refuse,  rubbish,  garbage,  manure,  etc 38,090  lb. 

!     Tins,  etc.,  not  burned 540  ' ' 

Net  quantities  consumed 37,550  '  * 

Refuse  consumed  per  hour 4,402  ' ' 

Refuse  consumed  per  hour  per  square  foot  of  grate  area 58 . 7  lb. 

Weight  of  clinker  remaining  after  combustion 15,880  lb. 

Percentage  of  clinker  and  ashes  to  refuse  consumed 42.1% 

Water  Evaporation: 

Total  water  evaporated 41,991  lb. 

!     Water  evaporated  per  hour,  actual 4,920  * ' 

Water  evaporated  per  hour,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr 5,970  " 

Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse,  actual 1 .  12  lb. 

Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse,  from  and  at  212  °  Fahr.  1 .  36  " 
Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse,  from  and  at  212° 

Fahr.  and  per  square  foot  of  total  heating  surface  per  hour.  2 .  72  " 

Pressures  and  Temperatures: 

Temperature  of  outside  air,  average 55°  Fahr. 

Barometric  pressure,  average 29 . 5    in. 

Average  steam  pressure 123.5  lb.  per  sq.  in. 

Average  pressure  in  ashpits 1 .  74  in. 

Average  vacuum  at  chimney  base A  " 

Average  temperature  of  combustion  chamber  (by  Watkin's 

heat  recorders) over  1,994°  Fahr. 

Highest  temperature  of  combustion  chamber over  2,318°     " 

Lowest  temperature  in  combustion  chamber 1,742°     " 

Average  temperature  of  air  entering  regenerator 75°     " 

Average  temperature  of  air  leaving  regenerator 206°     " 

Average  temperature  of  gases  entering  regenerator 427.5°  Fahr. 

Average  temperature  of  gases  leaving  regenerator 337.5°    " 

Average  temperature  of  feed-water 47°  Fahr. 

Gas  Analyses: 

Percentage  of  CO2  (average  of  six  readings) 10 . 9% 

Percentage  of  CO2,  highest  reading 13 . 6% 

Percentage  of  CO2,  lowest  reading  (clinkering  fires) 4.5% 

Times: 

Time  taken  to  clinker  one  grate 10|  min. 

Time  between  clinkerings 2  hr.  48  min. 

Times  each  fire  was  clinkered 3 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


373 


TABLE  112. — Summary  of  Tests  of  West  New  Brighton 
Refuse  Incinerator 


Test  No 

Date,  1908 

Duration,  hours 

Material  (see  note  at  foot  of 
table)    

Refuse  burned,  total  tons. .  .  . 
Refuse  burned  per  square  foot 

of  grate  area,  hourly,  lb. .  .  . 
Residiials : 

Clinker,  lb 

Ashes,  lb 

Tins,  etc.,  not  fired,  lb. 

Total,  lb 

Percentage  of  original  refuse 
Evaporation  per  pound  of  ref- 
use burned: 

Gross  actual,  lb 

Gross  equivalent,  from  and 
at  212°,  lb     

Net  useful  steam  for  power 
purposes,    from    and     at 

212°,  lb 

Carbon  dioxide: 

Average,  per  cent 

Maximum,  per  cent 

Minimum,  per  cent 

Temperature     in     combustion 
cham.ber,  deg.  F. 

Average 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Temp  of  chimney  gases,  deg.F. 
Temp,  of  outside  air,  deg.  F.  . 
Temp,  of  air  leaving  heater, 

deg.  F 

Temp,  of  feed- water,  deg.  F.  . 
Average  steam  pressure,  lb. 

per  sq.  in 

Number  of  fires  clinkered.  .  . 
Average  time  per  clinkering, 

minutes 


1 
May  6 


Sept. 
mixture 
20.802 

52 

10,930 

787 

1,046 

13,189 

30,9 


1.17 
1.41 

1.31 

12.2 
17 
6 


1,846 

2,210 

1,526 

393 

48.5 

306 
55 

137.4 
9 


2 

May  8 

6i 

Refuse  as 

collected 

16.145 

49.7 

8,390 

787 

340 
9,843 
30.2 


1.03 
1.25 

1.16 

12.3 
16.5 


1,715 

1,922 

1,526 

380 

51.5 

287 
55 

133.2 


3 
May  13 


Feb. 
mixture 
19 . 827 

49.6 

11,466 

1,978 

448 

14,293 

35.6 


1.10 
1.33 

1.24 

12.5 
17 
6 


1,637 

1,940 

1,382 

364 

83.9 

268 
56 

130.5 
10 

11.9 


4 

May  15 

5i 

Refuse  as 

collected 

17.235 

62.7 

12,965 

669 

389 
14,372 
41.2 


0.91 
1.10 

1.02 

12.4 

17.6 

8.6 


1,698 

1,904 

1,526 

397 

50.6 

288 
54 

136.4 

7 

12.3 


May  10 


Refuse  as 
collected 
23.673 

59.2 

17,344 

913 

349 

19,083 

40 


1 
1.21 

1.12 

12.9 

16.3 

7.6 


1,792 
1,940 
1,634 


54 


137.4 
5 


8.2 


Note. — The  material  burned  during  the  different  tests  was  as  follows: 

Test  1. — This  "September  mixture"  was  prepared  artificially,  and  was  made  up  of 
46.6%  of  garbage,  21.7%  of  fine  ash,  7.7%  of  coal  and  clinkers,  0.6%  of  clinker,  8.5%  of 
glass  and  metals,  and  14.9%  of  rubbish. 

Test  2.- — The  material  was  refuse  just  as  collected,  and  wet  from  the  rain.  A  sample 
dried  gave  38%  of  moisture. 

Test  3.- — This  "February  mixture"  was  prepared  artificially,  and  was  made  up  of 
79.5%  of  ashes,  11.8%  of  garbage,  5.3%  of  rubbish,  and  3.4%  of  glass  and  metals. 

Test  4.- — The  material  was  refuse  just  as  collected,  and  was  wet  from  a  rain  of  the 
previous,  day. 

Test  5. — The  material  was  relatively  dry  refuse  as  collected,  and  was  representative 
material. 


374    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE  113. — Summary  of  Tests  of  Milwaukee  Refuse  Incinerator, 
May  and  June,  1910 

(From  Engineering  News,  July  21,  1910.) 


Date 

May  19  and 

May  23,  24, 

May  26  to 

20 

and  June  3 

June  1 

Duration,  in  hours 

37 

Extreme 

36  hr.  26  min. 
Extreme 

37 
Average 

Grade  of  refuse  tested 

summer 

winter 

annual 

Refuse  burned,  total  tons 

123.62 

126.87 

126.81 

Percentage  of  garbage 

56.7 

29.7 

40.8 

Percentage  of  ashes 

30.6 

59.7 

41.0 

Percentage  of  rubbish 

5.9 

6.8 

4.8 

Percentage  of  manure 

6.8 

3.8 

13.4 

Rate  of  burning,  in  tons  per  24 

hours 

80 

84 

86 

Pounds  per  square  foot  of  grate 

area  per  hour 

63 

65 

64 

Number  of  fires  clinkered 

57 

62 

63 

Average  time  per  cUnkering,  in 

minutes 

7.8 

9 

7.3 

Evaporation  per  pound  of  refuse: 

Gross  actual,  in  pounds 

0.79 

1.19 

1.10 

Equivalent,  from  and  at  212° 

Fahr.,  in  pounds 

0.96 

1.45 

1.34 

Net  useful,  from  and  at  212° 

Fahr.,  in  pounds 

0.87 

1.36 

1.25 

Temperature  of  feed-water,   in 

degrees  Fahr 

52 

49 

49 

Average     steam     pressure,     in 

pounds  per  square  inch 

146 

133 

130 

Carbon  dioxide: 

Average,  percentage 

9.3 

8.8 

12.9 

Maximum,  percentage 

16.0 

19.8 

17.2 

Minimum,  percentage 

6.2 

5.5 

3.5 

Temperature,  in  degrees  Fahr. 

Combustion  chamber,  aver'ge 

1607 

1668 

1664 

Combustion  chamber,  min'm 

1267 

1240 

1267 

Combustion  chamber,  maxi'm 

1880 

2060 

2000 

Chimney  gases 

5S1 

597 

515 

Forced  draft,  leaving  heater. . 

398 

358 

351 

Pressure  of  draft  leaving  heater. 

in  inches  of  water 

4.2 

No.  4 

4.9 
Nos.  1  and  2 

4.6 

No.  1 

Furnace  units  under  test 

INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


375 


was  found  to  be  approximately  correct.  The  laborers  employed  during 
the  tests  were  not  skilled  in  this  kind  of  work.  The  firemen  had  been 
working  about  one  month  on  the  furnaces  before  the  tests  were  started, 
and  had  not  had  any  previous  experience  in  high-temperature  firing. 
The  water  fed  to  the  boilers  was  measured  through  a  hot-water  meter, 
calibrated  by  running  a  known  weight  of  water  through  it.  In  some 
instances:  all  the  water  delivered  to  the  boilers  was  preferably  weighed 
or  measured. 

At  this  plant  an  interesting  test  of  steam  production  was  made 
under  working  conditions  from  June  4  to  11,  1911,  covering  a  period 
of  six  days  of  routine  operation.  A  water  meter  on  the  main  boiler 
feed  line  was  calibrated,  and  read  at  frequent  intervals,  day  and  night. 
The  quantity  of  each  kind  of  refuse  burned  was  recorded  daily.  The 
firemen  worked  the  furnaces  carefully,  and  no  extra  or  special  men  were 
employed.  The  test  was  planned  to  determine  the  quantity  and  rate 
of  steam  production  which  could  be  secured  under  ordinary  conditions 
of  operation. 

The  test  showed  that  the  average  quantity  of  water  evaporated  in 
the  boilers  was  19,200  lb.  per  hour;  the  maximum,  31,600  lb.;  and 
the  minimum,  8,800  lb.  The  average  rate  of  evaporation,  in  pounds  of 
water  per  pound  of  refuse,  was  1.18;  the  maximum,  1.94;  and  the 
minimum,  0.54. 

The  following  tabulation  shows  the  quantities  of  refuse  burned: 


Average  tons 
daily 

Average  tons 
per  furnace 

Percentage 
by  weight 

Garbage 

Ashes 

Rubbish 

Manure 

Screenings 

Totals 

119.2 

48.3 

19.3 

4.7 

3.5 

42.1 

17.4 

7.0 

1.7 

1.3 

61.3 

24.7 

9.8 

2.4 

1.8 

195.0 

69.5 

100.0 

An  exceptionally  valuable  record  of  plant  operation  was  made  in 
1910  at  the  refuse  incinerator  at  Seattle,  which  had  a  capacity  of 
60  tons  per  twenty-four  hours,  and  had  a  front-fed  and  hand-fired 
furnace.     It  is  given  in  Table  114. 

Unfortunately,  reliable  tests  of  garbage  furnaces,  from  the  thermal 
point  of  view,  have  rarely  been  made.  The  principal  data  of  a  test  of 
the  furnace  at  Racine  (population  about  45,000),  on  December  13, 
1913,  are  therefore  of  interest.  This  plant  was  designed  by  Mr.  S.  R. 
Lewis.     The  chimney  is  150  ft.  high  and  4  ft.  in  diameter.     There  are 


376     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


two  furnaces,  each  having  two  units.  The  guaranteed  capacity  was 
1  ton  per  hour  in  each  of  the  units.  The  test  was  made  on  one  fur- 
nace. The  material  to  be  burned  (which  was  stored  for  several  days 
in  order  to  obtain  the  requisite  quantity,  namely,  8  tons)  was  com- 
posed of  kitchen  garbage  and  manure,  with  some  general  rubbish; 
this  had  an  average  weight  of  31  lb.  per  cubic  foot,  and  was  frozen. 

TABLE  114. — Results  of  Operation  op  Refuse  Incinerator  at  Seattle, 

1910 


Ash  and 

clinker 

Average 

Average 

Average 

No.  of 

days 

operation 

Refuse 

Clinker, 

in 

tons 

trom 

daily 

time  to 

time  each 

Month 

burned, 

in 

tons 

combus- 
tion 
chamber 

quantity 
of  refuse 
burned. 

clinker 

each  fire, 

in 

fire  was 

burning, 

in 

and  flues, 

in  tons 

minutes 

hours 

in  tons 

Jan. 

26 

1811.022 

945.720 

57.000 

69 . 655 

13.85 

3.70 

Feb. 

24 

1549.212 

843.470 

48.100 

66.426 

13.10 

3.18 

Mar. 

27 

1814.944 

953.801 

47.600 

67.220 

13.37 

3.16 

AprU 

26 

1745.884 

908.570 

68.700 

67 . 149 

13.25 

3.16 

May 

26 

1794.643 

751.300 

50.100 

69.025 

11.50 

3.10 

June 

26 

1813.368 

730.810 

29.100 

69.745 

10.40 

3.48 

July 

26 

1764.751 

561.540 

22.960 

67.875 

8.72 

3.57 

Aug. 

27 

1892.631 

594.330 

21.161 

70.100 

9.15 

3.43 

Sept. 

26 

1861 . 782 

660.775 

23.150 

71.607 

10.35 

3.33 

Oct. 

21 

1560.925 

655.910 

20.175 

74.330 

10.92 

2.82 

Nov. 

26 

1919.054 

884.110 

38.710 

73.810 

10.45 

2.38 

Dec. 

27 

1954.856 

1018.105 

52.360 

72.402 

10.95 

2.22 

The  fires  were  started  at  about  10  a.m.  Three  hours  and  500  lb. 
of  coal  were  allowed  to  heat  the  furnace  prior  to  the  test,  which  was 
started  at  1  p.m.  The  refuse  was  introduced  through  the  air  lock  at  a 
fairly  constant  speed  until  3:45  p.m.,  at  which  time  the  8  tons  had  all 
been  thrown  in.  In  1^  hours,  from  3:45  to  5  p.m.,  the  material  on 
the  hearths  was  burned  up  completely. 

From  2:50  to  3  p.m.  the  doors  leading  into  the  storage  bins  were 
purposely  opened,  rendering  the  air  locks  inoperative,  and  causing  a 
drop  in  temperature  to  900°  at  that  time. 

The  quantity  of  coal  burned  per  ton  of  refuse  was  132  lb.  The 
maximum  quantity  of  coal  guaranteed  for  1200°  temperature  was 
150  lb.  The  quantity  of  refuse  burned  per  hour  per  square  foot  of 
grate  area  was  85  lb. 

The  temperature  in  the  combustion  chamber  ranged -from  1100° 
to  1475°  (except  for  the  short  time  when  it  was  allowed  to  drop  to 
900°),  the  average  being  1241°.     The  draft  varied  from  0.60  to  0.75  in. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


377 


H      05 


Eh 
IS 

M 
K 
O 


c                          0       .       .       . 

„■              ^                                      ooa*                     (uooo 

CliO-l'                                                   SJ/M                            030)0)0) 

-a 

■3         1^   o>                                        m    m      ■  m           ..,        o)    m    m    00 

_m    03 

CC(Z)-tOCO       -.-hMcO'XI              -1^?           t^ov       .       .       .       • 

a    a) 

^  §        ^'  ^  g           1  a  S  " 

3     3     3     3 

'a  'a  a  a 

0^                                                                        iJiOiS                             rli-HCCOi 
CC                                                                                               -G                                          1-^ 

-H 

xture. 
nace, 
,  1913 

do          d                      g    d    «■    d 

0)     0)              0)                               £     0)     0)     0) 

^8          "^-=.               ^oSio*?          ^f-;^«<^ 

•sl- 

coo     ■-i<c^t^--i(Na>c^''""''''»"-<'-'05^'* 

5!    2    0    §    2;    CO-  ^    >"    g     3     3-    -:     =■           ^    2    "''     d     C     3- 

;***'*'='                 1  's  S  a        -      a  a  £ 

ntei 
uth 

gus 

.-.03 

m  tr>        i>i                        r-i  t^  0 

^  ^  < 

C-l                                          '^    — 

ixture. 
nace, 
,  1913 

_.                                 C    6        6                  %   6   6   6 

»0»C                                                   0)0)0                            S^^G) 

6  5  3 

t^OOOOt^O«0<DO'~'^     mi-HujoOOb-^'"'" 

m.-ie©OT»iooNOoo     .     .0             i-ioo     •■• 

■<i<aa        M^o             r-ec.fi             t»         CCC 

It  3 

a    3    bo 

s       ^'    s           a  a  c5  'a             'a  1 1 

«    0    3 

Ti<  lo        in                        .-1  X  lo 

3  w  ^ 

N 

3    0  2 

d    d          d                      ,;    d    d    d 

O      0)              O                               O      0)      0)      OJ 

lOt^                                                               OQOT.tn^              ^m'"®® 

mix 
furni 
9,  IS 

CDOOcqMO-*'0(N              -co       •           '^'''     _•_•_•     -• 

is       r-     <=^ 

M^^Tf-HO)                  OCS.C                  (NCCCC 

•2     5       >> 

S  "*     '-°     S        '^"  's  '2  S  'e        ''"  "£  's  's  's 

.-■0    3 

Tf     03              t~                                CC     ^     JJ     ^ 

0 

d      .      .      . 

382 

„                                        ooo                      a)oou 

GO                                                        0)0)0)                               IB0)O)O> 

"><  c  2 

^^        "        '^             omSo'*^,  "^""mc^o 

■§1^- 

t^0050'HCOiOt>-.-iO'0=^""'tO'Ot^OO"           '^ 

io«©9^c^Tj(,-iiM50«D     .     .in             '-'?5"'_-^-_- 

fe      i^> 

CO            o^co            t^cc.c            (»        cec 

H-t 

%        ==     2          'a  'a  ?5  'a             'a  'a  'a 

ii- 

T^    t^           r-                                r^    -^    Oi 

(N 

05 

d 

t^ 

« 

t^ 

t^ 

3 
0) 

0) 

a 

3 

a 

o 

0 
0) 

0) 
J3 

i-t 

"a 

s 

J3     1 

a 

.a 

0) 

0) 

m 

O      t; 

tH 

w/,   ^ 

.2 

H 
0 

03 
M 

o 

is 

0) 

§  ft 

O     3    X 

a  ®  5, 

1 

o 
o 

0) 

X 
c 

6fl 

•o  a 
o   ^•■ 

"3 

m 

o 

a 

«  S^  fc 

3 
O 

2  i£ 

,i<! 

tH 
0 

^ 

T3 

c 

3 

•2^  & 

m     e     03 

■"    Ji    O     o    ^     3 
0)   -^  -*^    °    d  ^ 

a 

3 

3  a 
i.S 
•2|| 

H  |5  2 

•«     "n    3     0)     !- 
0)     0)     ^-    c    -^ 

a  ft  fe  .g   =■ 

^  S  S  0)  &  3  ts  •" 
t.^   2-f=   ^^   a    -.£ 

^    o     °     fe   ■&  .5   ~     ^    r 

•o    S  ^ 

3r1l 

lis 

.2     03     0) 

-  a  a  = 
3"s.s  : 

ssllf-^a  a  a-S^^II  ill 

.^t-o)0)0)0).g_St-a>o),*^oo 

=3bi).»^.^jCCMSFi2S2£^gfl"2S22 

(-.  -^    >^Tn^^--^r3(i)a)o)fl)Jj.CO)0)33s 

S»;oooo^o)=>>>>>ofe3>>.H.g.g 

378     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE  116. — Results  op  Test  of  Heenan  Incinerator  at  Savannah, 
August  21  and  22,  1914 

Duration  of  test:  3  a.m.,  21st,  to  12.30  a.m.,  22d:  21 1  hours. 
Composition  of  refuse:  Garbage  45%,  rubbish  40%,  manure  5%,  ash  10%. 
Type  of  incinerator:  Two  four-trough  grate  furnaces  with  forced  draft. 
Number  of  furnaces  at  work:  2. 
Total  grate  surface:  Both  furnaces,  160  sq.  ft. 

Type  of  boilers:   Wicke's  vertical  water-tube,  equipped  with  Foster  super- 
heaters. 
Total  heating  surface  of  each  boiler,  2000  sq.  ft. 
Total  refuse  burned,  277,550  lb. 


Test 
results 


Bmlders' 
guaranties 


Total  refuse  burned  per  hour,  in  pounds 

Total  refuse  burned  per  square  foot  of  grate  surface 
per  hour,  in  pounds 

Total  cUnker  and  ash,  in  pounds  (approx.) 

Percentage  of  clinker  and  ash  to  refuse  burned. . .  . 

Maximum  combustion  chamber  temperature 

Minimum  combustion  chamber  temperature 

Average  combustion  chamber  temperature 

Average  steam  pressure  (gage),  in  pounds 

Average  temperature  of  steam 

Average  superheat 

Average  temperature  of  feed-water 

Total  water  fed  to  boilers,  in  pounds 

Total  water  evaporated,  from  and  at  212°  F.,  in  lb. 

Total  water  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse,  in  lb .  . 

Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  combustible,  in  lb. 

Total  boiler  horse-power  developed  per  hour 

Estimated  horse-power  used  in  plant  for  75  kw.. 
non-condensing,  turbo-generator  set  and  boiler 
feed  pump 

Excess  boiler  horse-power 

Average  air  pressure  under  grate,  in  inches 

Average  air  temperature 

Average  stack  draft,  in  inches 

Average  CO2,  percentage 

Total  number  of  charges,  both  furnaces 

Average  weight  of  charge,  in  pounds 

Total  number  of  clinkerings,  both  furnaces 


12,909 

80.6 

68,608 

24.7 

2,000°  F. 

1,700°  F. 

1,845°  F. 

120 

523°  F. 
173°  F. 
206°  F. 
397,162 
450,382 
1 
2 
607 


10,833 


60 


1,250°  F 
1,500°  r. 


100°  F. 


.62 
.15 


1.3 


118 
489 

31 
252°  F. 
0.72 
11.43 
447 
621 
64 


330 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


379 


c 
> 

c 

OR 


W 

CD 


. 

s  III 

0  0 
0  0 

si  1 

^        to 

§    s 

0      0 

i 

1 

w. 

> 

^ 

< 

(' 

\ 

y 

' 

i 

, 

00= 

if 

OS     0 

oc     0 

I 

i  1 

0 

0 

i 

0 

0 

s 

i 

; 

/ 

( 

f — 

\ 

en 

< 

\ 

•s  ill 

\%% 

1 

0  0 

0 

0 

0 

§ 

^ 

? 

i 

r^ 

o 

\, 

K 

J 

s-?-^^-l 


380    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

of  water,  the  average  being  0.69;  and  the  CO2  in  the  gas  ranged  from 
7  to  12%,  with  an  average  of  9.6%. 

The  plant  at  Topeka,  also  designed  by  Mr.  Lewis,  is  practically 
a  duplicate  of  the  one  at  Racine. 

Table  115  gives  the  work  elements  that  were  obtained  during 
official  tests  made  at  the  Clifton  incinerator,  built  by  the  Power 
Specialty  Company,  in  1914,  for  summer  and  winter  refuse. 

Table  116  gives  the  results  of  a  test  made  in  1914  in  Savannah  of  a 
new  Heenan  incinerator,  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  E.  R.  Conant, 
City  Engineer.  The  water  evaporated  from  1  lb.  of  refuse,  from  and 
at  212°  Fahr.,  was  1.62  lb.  The  details  of  the  test,  which  lasted  21^ 
hours,  and  of  the  cost  of  operation,  according  to  contract  and  actual, 
are  given.  Fig.  93  gives  diagrams  of  the  CO2  record  and  of  the  tem- 
perature in  the  combustion  chamber. 

The  test  was  made  with  a  running  start.  All  the  hoppers  were 
empty,  and  were  then  charged  with  the  test  mixture.  All  combustion 
chamber  temperatures  were  taken  with  a  thermo-electric  recording 
pyrometer.  All  other  temperatures  were  taken  with  mercury  ther- 
mometers. The  water  was  measured  with  a  Worthington  hot-water 
meter.  Steam  pressures  were  taken  with  a  recording  pressure  gauge 
connected  with  the  main  steam  line. 

The  steam  was  delivered  to  the  main  steam  header  of  the  water- 
works pumping  station,  and  used  to  operate  one  10,000,000-gal. 
pumping  engine  and  one  1850-cu.  ft.  cross-compound  condensing 
air  compressor.  From  12:15  to  5:10  p.m.  the  pumping  engine  was 
speeded  up.  The  steam  was  also  used  to  operate  all  prime-mover 
units  used  in  generating  power  in  the  plant.  The  safety  valves  on  the 
boilers  were  popping  off  from  5:30  until  6:30  p.m. 

At  7  A.M.  of  August  22  all  the  refuse  in  the  storage  pit  had  been 
burned,  and  from  that  time  until  8  a.m.  insufficient  refuse  was  deliv- 
ered to  keep  the  plant  going  at  full  capacity. 

The  weather  during  the  test  was  hot  and  humid,  and  there  were 
occasional  showers.  All  the  calculations  were  based  on  the  standards 
of  the  American  Society  of  Mechanical  Engineers. 

Cost  of  Operation — Based  on  Contract 

Hoisting,                  1  man  per  8-hour  shift  at.  .  $2.40 

Stoking,                   4  men  per  8-hour  shift  at .  . .  2 .  40 

Clinker  removing,  1  man  per  8-hour  shift  at . .  .  1 .  50 

Engineer,                 1  man  per  8-hour  shift  at. . .  4.00 

Total  labor  charges  per  shift $17 .  50 

Total  labor  charges  per  24  hours 52 .  50 

Total  labor  charges  per  ton,  at  130-ton  rate 0.404 


$2.40 

9.60 

1.50 

4.00 

INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


381 


Cost  of  Opkuation — Based  on  Actual  Tests 

Hoisting,                  1  man  per  8-  hour  shift  at .  .  $2 .  25  $2 .  25 

Stoking,                    4  men  per  8-hour  shift  at .  .  .  1 .  75  7 .  00 

Clinker  removing,  1  man  per  8-hour  shift  at . .  .  1 .  50  1 .  50 

Engineer,                 1  man  per  8-hour  shift  at . . .  4 .  00  4 .  00 

Total  labor  charges  per  shift $14 .  75 

Total  labor  charges  per  24  hours 44 .  25 

Total  labor  charges  per  ton,  at  130-ton  rate 0 .  3403 

Total  labor  charges  per  ton  for  138.75  tons  in  21 5  hrs.       0.318 

San  Francisco,  on  the  advice  of  Hering,  prepared  specifications 
for  the  construction  of  an  incinerator  at  Islais  Creek.  The  Power 
Specialty  Company  was  the  lowest  bidder,  and  built  the  works. 
The  guaranties  were  clear  and  reasonable  in  their  intent  to  secure 
satisfactory  results,  but,  in  a  strictly  literal  interpretation,  contained 
several  requirements  which,  under  existing  conditions,  were  not  quite 
fulfilled.  The  incinerator  was  first  operated  in  August,  1913.  In  Febru- 
ary, 1914,  it  was  shut  down  in  order  to  put  in  a  new  and  better  clinker 
handling  system;  it  was  again  operated  in  August,  1914,  and  tested 
for  a  period  of  thirty  days  from  September  4  to  October  3,  1914. 

TABLE  117. — Analyses  op  Refuse  Delivered  for  Test 
OF  Islais  Creek  Incinerator,  San  Francisco,  1914 


Date 

Sample 
No. 

Tons 

Grab- 
buckets 
hoisted 

Samples 
taken 

Moisture 

Com- 
bustible 

Sept.  23 

1 

121.61 

181 

22 

55.9% 

25.9% 

"     24 

2 

92.13 

132 

22 

53.1 

24.9 

"     25 

3 

104.21 

150 

25 

56.5 

23.4 

"     26 

4 

109.92 

143 

24 

52.9 

26.5 

"     28 

5 

113.94 

162 

27 

55.4 

26.5 

"     29 

6 

134.39 

188 

30 

47.7 

23.9 

"     30 

7 

138.40 

180 

30 

52.5 

25.7 

Oct.      1 

8 

110.83 

156 

25 

48.9 

28.0 

2 

Totals 

9 

104.45 

123 

20 

48.6 

27.3 

471.5 

232.1 

Averages  for  the  nine 

days.  . .  . 

52.4% 

25.8% 

An  analysis  of  the  refuse  delivered  by  the  city  during  the  test  is 
given  in  Table  117.  Table  118  is  a  record  of  the  thirty-day  test,  and 
Table  119  shows  the  evaporation  trial. 


382     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

TABLE  118. — Results  of  Test  of  Islais  Creek  Incinerator, 
San  Francisco,  Cal. 

30-day  teat 

Date  of  test Sept.  4  to  Oct.  3,  1914 

Duration  of  test  in  actual  operation 26  days 

Total  burning  for  entire  period 449 . 0  hours 

Average  burning  hours  per  day  for  26  days 17 .6     " 

Refuse:  * 

Received  for  the  period,  Sept.  4  to  Oct.  3 2,831 .0    tons 

Average  for  the  26  days,  per  day 108 .88     " 

Moisture  per  ton  at  52.4%,  mean  of  9  samples.  .  .  .  .  1,048.0    lb. 

Combustible  per  ton  at  25.8%,  mean  of  9  samples  . .  516.0     " 

Average  quantity  of  ash 21 .8% 

Grates: 

Area  of  one  grate 15 . 4  sq.  ft. 

Number  of  grates  per  furnace 4 

Total  grate  area  for  two  furnaces 123 . 2  sq.  ft. 

Refuse  burned  per  hour  during  test 12,600  to  13,700      lb. 

Refuse  burned  per  hour  per  square  foot  of  grate 

surface 102  to  111  " 

Water: 

Average  to  boilers  during  burning  time 190,085.0  ' ' 

Average  to  boilers  shut-down  time 10,060 .0  " 

Total  average  to  boilers  for  24  hours 200,145 .0  " 

Feed-water  temperature 68 . 0  deg. 

Evaporation  equivalent:  f 

Factor  of  evaporation  for  burning  period 1 .  264  lb. 

Factor  of  evaporation  for  shut-down  period 1 .  19     " 

Equivalent  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°,  for  burn- 
ing period 240,267 .0  lb. 

Equivalent  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°,  for  shut- 
down period 11,971.0  " 

Total  of  equivalent  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°. . .  252,238 . 0  " 

Steam: 

Pressure  by  gage,  mean  of  26  days 148 . 0  " 

Temperature,  saturated  steam  at  pressure 365.0  deg. 

Temperature,  superheated  steam 487 .0    ' ' 

*  No  tests  were  made  to  determine  the  percentages  of  garbage,  rubbish,  fine  ash,  etc., 
in  the  refuse.  So  far  as  known,  the  quality  of  the  refuse  was  practically  the  same  as 
when  the  analyses  incorporated  in  the  specifications  were  made.  There  was  practically 
no  coal  ash,  and  the  refuse  might  be  classified  as  a  mixture  of  garbage  and  rubbish 
with  a  considerable  quantity  of  metal,  i.e.,  wire,  tin  cans,  etc. 

t  The  average  evaporation  during  the  30-day  test,  in  pounds  of  water  per  hour,  from 
and  at  212°  F.,  was  1.22.  This  was  higher  than  during  the  two  evaporation  tests  for  the 
actual  net  cost  of  incineration,  in  which  tests  the  corresponding  figiire  was  1.15  lb.  per 
hour,  from  and  at  212°  F.,  per  pound  of  refuse. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  383 

TABLE  118— (Conlinued) 

Degrees  of  superheat 122 . 0  deg. 

For  generator  drive,  28.17  lb.  per  kw.-hr 9,817.0  lb. 

For  feed  pump,  29.55  lb.  per  1000  lb 5,914 .0  ' ' 

Available  balance  for  revenue 236,507.0  " 

Power: 

Total  output  by  generator,  average  for  26  days.  . .  .  368.5  kw.-hr. 

For  incineration 348 .5       " 

Cost  of  incineration: 

Assumed  revenue  from  steam  at  $0.04,  100  lb.  steam  S94 .  60 

Cost  of  labor  =  17.6/22  of  $66.00 52.80 

Assumed  net  profit 41 .  80 

Cost  of  incineration  per  ton  of  garbage: 

Assumed  revenue  from  steam  per  ton 0 .  8688 

Cost  of  labor  =  17 . 6/22  of  $66.00/108.88 0 .  4849 

Assumed  net  profit  per  ton 0 .  3839 

Guaranteed  profit  per  ton,  standard  garbage 0 .  255 

Corrections  for  excess  of  moisture — minus 0 .  0538 

Corrections  for  excess  of  combustible — plus 0 .  0896 

Corrected  guaranteed  profit  per  ton 0 .  291 

Difference  between  assumed  net  profit  and  corrected 

guaranteed  net  profit  per  ton  more  than  guaranty. . .  0 .  0929 

Alter  this  test  the  City  Officers  rejected  the  plant  on  the  ground 
that  it  did  not  fulfill  all  the  guaranties.  The  case  was  taken  into 
Court,  tried,  and,  after  many  witnesses  had  been  heard,  was  decided 
in  favor  of  the  contracting  company. 

The  City  had  claimed  that  the  test  showed  a  nuisance  from  the 
works,  in  that  odors,  obnoxious  gases,  smoke,  and  dust  escaped  from 
the  buildings  or  chimneys.  The  evidence  of  many  witnesses  clearly 
showed  that  any  nuisance  during  the  test  was  either  trivial,  unreliable, 
or  emanated  from  other  plants  than  the  incinerator,  or  when  the  latter 
was  not  operating  under  contract  conditions;  and  steam  escaping 
from  the  chimneys  had  popularly  been  mistaken  for  smoke. 

The  City  had  claimed  that  the  combustion  chamber  temperature 
at  times  had  fallen  below  the  specific  minimum  of  1250°.  According 
to  the  evidence,  this  had  been  the  case  only  near  the  starting  time,  or 
momentarily  when  greatly  disproportionate  combustible  refuse  had 
been  delivered  by  the  City. 

The  City  had  claimed  that  all  the  residue  should  be  burned  thor- 
oughly hard.  Proof  was  presented  indicating  that,  as  in  all  cases  of 
city  refuse  containing  little  or  no  ashes,  the  San  Francisco  refuse  could 
not  always  produce  a  thoroughly  hard  clinker. 


384     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

TABLE  119. — Evaporation  Test  of  Islais  Creek  Incinerator, 
San  Francisco,  Cal. 

(A  part  of  the  30-day  test.) 

Date  of  test October  2,  1914 

Duration  of  test 16.4  hours 

Garbage: 

For  the  day 104 .  45  tons 

Moisture  per  ton  at  48.6% 972.0    lb. 

Combustible  per  ton  at  27.3% 546.0     " 

Water: 

To  boilers  for  burning  period,  16.4  hr 190,460. 0     ' ' 

To  boilers  for  shut-down  period,  7.5  hr 13,330.0     " 

Total  to  boilers  from  starting  Oct.  2  to  starting  Oct.  3.  203,790 .0     " 

Feed-water  temperature 68 . 0    deg. 

Evaporation  equivalent: 

Factor  of  evaporation  for  burning  period,  16.4  hr 1 .26 

Factor  of  evaporation  for  7.5  hr.,  shut-down  period. ...  1 .  19 

Equivalent  evap.,  from  and  at  212°,  for  16.4-hr.  period.  239,979.0  lb. 

Equivalent  evap.,  from  and  at  212°,  for  7.5-hr.  period.  15,862.0  " 

Total  equivalent  evaporation,  from  and  at  212° 255,841 . 0  " 

Steam: 

Pressure  by  gage 147 . 0  " 

Temperature,  saturated  steam  at  pressure 364 . 5  deg. 

Temperature,  superheated  steam 480 .1    " 

Degrees  of  superheat 115.5    " 

For  generator  drive,  28.17  lb.  per  kw.-hr 9,975 .0  lb. 

For  feed-pump,  29.55  lb.  per  1000  lb 6,022.0  " 

Available  balance  for  revenue 239,844 . 0  " 

Power: 

Total  output  by  generator 374 . 7  kw.-hr. 

For  clinker 20.6 

For  incineration 354 .1        " 

Cost  of  incineration  for  the  day: 

Assumed  revenue  from  steam  at  $0.04  per  100  lb $95 .  94 

Cost  of  labor  =  16.4/22  of  $66.00 49.20 

Assumed  net  profit 46 .  74 

Cost  of  incineration  per  ton  of  garbage: 

Assumed  revenue  from  steam  at  4  cents  100  ib 0.9185 

Cost  of  labor  =  16 . 4/22  of  $66.00/104.45 0 .  471 

Assumed  net  profit  per  ton 0 .  4475 

Guaranteed  profit  per  ton  of  standard  garbage 0 .  255 

Correction  for  deficiency  of  moisture 0 .  0078 

Correction  for  excess  of  combustible 0 .  1376 

Corrected  guaranteed  profit 0 .  4004 

Difference  between  assumed  net  profit  and   corrected 

guaranteed  net  profit  per  ton  more  than  guaranty ....  0 .  0471 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  385 

On  the  other  hand,  the  City  admitted  that  the  average  temperature 
was  in  excess  of  the  guaranteed  average  of  1500°;  that  furnaces,  flues, 
combustion  chambers,  etc.,  did  not  have  to  be  shut  down  more  than 
forty-eight  hours  in  any  one  week  in  order  to  remove  all  dust  and 
ashes;  that  the  number  of  pounds  of  refuse  burned  per  square  foot 
of  grate  surface  exceeded  the  contractor's  bid;  and  that  the  cost  per 
ton  for  incineration  was  less  than  the  bid  price. 

We  have  here  stated  some  of -the  details  of  this  case  for  two  reasons. 
First,  to  show  the  futility  of  specifying  guaranties  in  too  much  detail, 
at  the  present  stage  of  the  still  developing  art  of  refuse  incineration, 
instead  of  only  the  broad  essential  requirements;  and  secondly,  to 
place  before  engineers  and  contractors  questions  in  reference  to  guar- 
anties which  may  arise  in  Court. 

A  careful  study  was  made  by  Mr.  J.  J.  Jessup  for  a  refuse  incin- 
erator at  Berkeley,  in  1913,  with  the  result  that  the  Sterling  design 
was  adopted  and  built.  In  1914  a  test  was  made,  with  the  results 
given  in  Table  120.  The  refuse  consisted  almost  wholly  of  garbage 
and  rubbish.  The  average  moisture  ranged  from  48^  to  63%,  and 
the  average  combustible  only  from  5^  to  17%.  Consequently,  the 
evaporation,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.,  per  pound  of  refuse,  ranged  only 
from  0.6  to  1.01  lb.,  but  the  incineration  was  without  offensive  odor. 

At  Huntington  (population  about  45,000),  the  garbage  furnace  de- 
signed by  Mr.S.R.  Lewis,  was  tested  on  October  ?6, 1914.  The  furnace 
is  composed  of  two  units,  and  has  special  quick-operating  doors,  but 
no  storage  bins.  Natural  gas  is  burned,  though  provision  is  made  for 
the  use  of  coal.     The  chimney  is  125  ft.  high  and  26  in.  in  diameter. 

The  material  burned  was  a  mixture  of  kitchen  garbage  and  general 
city  rubbish,  the  latter  weighing  22  lb.  per  cubic  foot;  the  carcass  of 
one  horse,  weighing  1200  lb.  was  burned. 

The  fires  were  Started  at  6:30  a.m.,  and  8000  cu.  ft.  of  gas  were 
burned  to  heat  the  furnace  to  900°  (combustion  chamber)  at  10  a.m. 
The  material  was  introduced  continuously  from  10  a.m.  until  5  p.m. 
It  had  all  been  burned  at  6:30  p.m. 

The  maximum  temperature  in  the  combustion  chamber  was  1400°, 
the  minimum,  1100°,  and  the  average,  1230°.  The  temperature 
dropped  to  900°  almost  momentarily  when  the  door  to  the  combustion 
chamber  was  opened. 

In  8^  hours  25,860  lb.  of  refuse,  or  3043  lb.  per  hour,  were  burned. 
This  is  at  the  rate  of  84.5  lb.  per  square  foot  of  grate  area  per  hour, 
and  it  required  0.785  cu.  ft.  of  gas  per  pound  of  refuse  burned.  This 
plant  has  recently  been  shut  down. 

In  1914  it  was  decided,  on  the  recommendation  of  Hering,  to 
build  a  mixed  refuse  incinerator  in  Atlanta.     After  competitive  bids 


386     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE  120. — Results  of  Tests  of  the  Sterling  Refuse  Incinerator, 
Berkeley,  Cal.,  1914 


Capacity 

Evaporation 

test 

and  tempera- 

Guaran- 

with 

ture  test 

teed 

wet 

with  average 

figures 

garbage 

garbage 

Dates 

Jan.  10-31, 
1914 

Feb.  2-7, 
1914 

Number  of  days 

19 

6 

Quantity  of  refuse  burned,  in  pounds . . 

1,261,350 

373,040 

Average  number  of  tons  per  day 

33.2 

31.09 

Average  number  of  hours  run  per  day . . 

12.55 

10.7 

Average  number  of  tons  burned  per  hr . 

2.65 

2.89 

2 

Exceeding   guaranteed    capacity,    per- 

centage   

33 

44 

Average  weight  of  refuse  per  cubic  yard. 

in  pounds 

818 

744 

Average  percentage  of  moisture 

63 

48J 

Average  percentage  of  non-combustible 

3U 

34i 

Average  percentage  of  combustible  in 

refuse 

51 

17 

Total  quantity  of  water  evaporated,  in 

pounds 

628,083 

311,581 

Evaporation,  from  and  at  212°  F.,  per 

pound  of  refuse,  in  pounds 

0.6 

1.01 

1 

Average  boiler  pressure  (gage),  in  lb. .  . . 

lOOi 

97.3 

Minimum  temperature  in  combustion 

chamber 

1,300° 

1250° 

Maximum  temperature  in  combustion 

chamber 

2,200° 

Average    temperature    in    combustion 

chamber 

1,800° 

Pounds  burned  per  square  foot  of  grate . 

71 

77 

53 

Exceeding    guaranteed    capacity,    per- 

centage  

34 

45 

Wages  paid  during  test,  per  hour 

$1,342 

$1,342 

Actual  cost  per  ton 

0.506 

0.464 

$0.52 

Saving  under  guaranteed  cost,  percent- 

age   

2.7 

10.8 

the  Power  Specialty  Company  erected  a  Heenan  furnace.  It  was 
completed  early  in  1915,  and  was  tested  from  1  p.m.,  May  26  to 
6:10  A.M.,  May  27.  Table  121  gives  a  summary  of  the  test.  It  will 
be  seen  that  the  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.,  was  more  than 
2  lb.  of  water  per  pound  of  refuse. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  387 

TABLE  121. — Results  of  Test  of  Hkenan    Refuse  Incinerator, 
Atlanta,  1915 

Refuse  fed  into  furnaces  (of  proportions  specified  in  con- 
tract)    391,085  lb. 

Dry  clinker  withdrawn 1 12,300  ' ' 

Percentage  of  water  in  clinker 13 .  45 

Clinker,  percentage  of  refuse 28 . 8 

Refuse,  less  clinker 278,785  lb. 

Water  evaporated 530,258  '  * 

Furnace  hours 51.5 

Duration  of  run ' 17  hr.  10  min. 

Average  Quantities 

Steam  pressure,  absolute 190.051b. persq. in. 

Steam  temperature 515.22°  Fahr 

Superheat 137.62°      " 

Feed-water,  before  passing  through  feed-water  heater .  .  .  78°           ' ' 

Feed-water,  after  passing  through  feed-water  heater 190.31°      " 

Factors  of  Evaporation 

Boiler  only 1 .0706 

BoUer  and  superheater 1 .  1508 

Boiler  and  feed-water  heater 1 .  186 

Boiler,  superheater,  and  feed-water  heater 1 .  266 

Rates 

Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  material  fired 1 .  3558  lb. 

Equivalent  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.,  per 
pound  of  material  (refuse)  fed  into  furnace: 

Boiler  only 1 .4509  lb. 

BoUer  and  superheater 1 .  5594  ' ' 

Boiler  and  feed-water  heater 1 .  6082  ' ' 

Boiler,  superheater,  and  feed-water  heater 1 .  7167  ' ' 

Water  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse  fed  to  furnace,  less 

clinker,  observed 1 .  905     ' ' 

Equivalent   evaporation,   from  and   at   212°   Fahr.,  per 
pound  of  material  (refuse)  fired,  less  clinker: 

BoHeronly 2.038     " 

Boiler  and  superheater 2 .  190     ' ' 

Boiler  and  feed- water  heater 2 .  26       " 

Boiler,  superheater,  and  feed-water  heater 2.41       " 

Capacity  per  24  Hours 

Based  on  72  furnace-hours 273 . 5  tons 

Average  temperature,  charging  floor 121 . 5°  Fahr. 

Average  temperature,  out  doors 75 . 7°      " 

Average  difference 45 . 8°      " 


388     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

With  reference  to  the  test,  it  should  be  mentioned  that  Mr.  E.  H. 
Foster,  of  the  Power  Specialty  Company,  states  that: 

"  Due  to  the  excessive  amount  of  garbage  delivered  with  the  refuse,  the 
moisture  ran  much  higher  than  tbe  contract  conditions  called  for,  which 
made  the  chimney  undersized  when  three  furnaces  were  in  operation,  and  it 
was  found  that  the  chimney  draft  had  to  be  augmented  by  the  installation  of 
an  induced-draft  fan,  which  easily  brought  the  plant  up  to  capacity.  If  it 
had  been  known  beforehand  that  the  city  collection  was  so  deficient  in  house- 
hold ashes,  ample  precautions  could  and  would  have  been  taken  in  the  original 
design." 

This  case  shows  the  importance  of  making  sufficieat  analyses  of 
the  refuse  (Chapter  I),  in  order  to  design  the  plant  properly  and 
economically,  and  determine  its  best  operation. 

We  have  added  the  results  of  a  test  of  an  incinerator  at  Ridgewood, 
in  1916,  which  consumes  only  garbage  and  rubbish.  No  ashes  were 
contained  in  the  material  delivered  and  no  fuel  was  added.  Table 
122  gives  the  detailed  results  as  recorded. 

A  comparison  of  the  working  elements  of  the  plants  at  West  New 
Brighton  in  1908,  and  Clifton  in  1913  is  given  in  Table  123,  to  show 
the  substantial  progress  made  in  the  efficiency  of  incineration. 

For  other  tests,  see  also  under  description  of  plants,  Chapter  X,  F. 

The  successful  operation  of  an  incinerator  requires  careful  atten- 
tion and  skilled  labor.  The  handling  of  the  fires  is  particularly  impor- 
tant. It  is  not  unusual  to  operate  the  furnace  six  days  in  a  week.  On 
Sundays  and  holidays,  as  well  as  overnight  in  small  cities,  the  fires  can 
be  banked,  with  a  small  loss. 

After  a  year  of  operation,  the  following  rules  were  formulated  for 
the  guidance  of  the  firemen  at  the  Milwaukee  incinerator: 

"  The  following  directions  must  be  carefully  observed  in  firing: 

"  (a)  Always  cover  the  fire  as  heavily  and  as  rapidly  as  possible.  With 
wet  garbage,  which  is  over  60%  of  the  mixture,  such  cover  can  only  be  about 
3  in.  thick.  With  dry  material,  containing  not  over  50%  garbage  and  con- 
siderable rubbish  (say  10%),  the  fire  can  be  covered  2  ft.  thick  or  more. 
If  the  refuse  is  dry  but  compact,  and  therefore  heavy,  the  cover  shall  not  be 
over  1  ft. 

"  (6)  Above  all,  keep  the  fire  covered  with  fresh  wet  material  all  the  time, 
until  time  for  it  to  burn  off  before  clinkering. 

"  (c)  In  banking  up  a  fire  to  last,  get  in  as  little  ash  as  possible — a  bank  of 
75%  garbage  is  best.  This  will  prevent  the  clinker  from  being  hard.  A 
fire  banked  with  ashes  is  difficult  to  draw  out  after  sixteen  hours. 

"  (d)  In  clinkering  a  fire,  draw  out  as  little  fine  ash  as  possible.  The 
bed  of  coals  left  on  the  fire  may  be  as  deep  as  4  in.,  but  should  not  be  much 
over  this.  If  the  coals  are  hot  and  well  burned,  cover  them  with  a  fresh  charge 
at  once. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


389 


TABLE  122. — Results  of  Tests  of  Decarie  Incinerator,  Ridgewood, 
Borough  of  Queens,  New  York  City,  May,  1916 

(From  Engineerina  News,  September  28,  1916.) 


Date  of  test 

Unit  tested 

Weather 

Duration  of  test,  in  hours 

Mixed  refuse  consumed — garbage,  in  pounds 

Mixed  refuse  consumed — rubbish,  in  pounds 

Total  material  consumed,  in  pounds 

Guaranteed  rated  capacity  of  units  operated,  in  tons 

per  24  hours 

Percentage  of  material,  garbage 

Percentage  of  material,  rubbish 

Refuse  consumed  per  hour,  in  tons 

Equivalent  incineration  in  24  hours,  in  tons 

Equivalent  incineration  per  square  foot  of  grate  area 

per  hour,  in  pounds 

Labor  cost,  as  per  terms  of  contract 

Labor  cost  per  ton,  as  per  contract 

Actual  labor  cost,  as  operated  by  the  city 

Actual  labor  cost  per  ton,  as  operated  by  the  city. . . 

Cost  of  fuel  required  per  ton 

Total  cost  of  operation  per  ton,  as  per  terms  of  con- 
tract   

Total  cost  of  operation  per  ton,  as  actually  operated. 
Guaranteed  maximum  cost  of  operation,  per  ton .  .  . 

Condition  and  quantity  of  smoke 

Percentage  of  carbon  in  free  state  in  the  clinker .... 

Percentage  of  ash  and  clinker  produced 

Temperatures,  in  degrees  Fahrenheit: 

Average  in  combustion  chamber.  No.  1  unit 

Average  in  combustion  chamber.  No.  2  unit 

Maximum  temperature  in  combustion  chamber. 
No.  1  unit 

Maximum  temperature  in  combustion  chamber. 
No.  2  unit 

Average  temperature  of  forced  draft  beneath  grates 

Average  stack  draft,  in  inches  of  water 

Average  steam  pressure,  in  pounds  per  square  inch: 

In  No.  1  unit 

In  No.  2  unit 


May  8 

May  10 

May  15 

No.  1 

No.  2 

Nos.  Iand2 

Clear 

Clear 

Clear 

17 

15.5 

17.5 

74,770 

71,325 

141,681 

30,585 

29,990 

60,330 

105,355 

101,315 

202,011 

50 

50 

100 

70.9 

70.3 

70.1 

29.1 

29.7 

29.9 

3.09 

3.26 

5.77 

74.16 

78.24 

138.48 

69.67 

72.4 

64.1 

$22.31 

$20.35 

$36 . 09 

42.3  c. 

40.1c. 

35.7  c. 

$28.69 

$26.16 

$42.65 

54.5  c. 

51.6c. 

42.2  c. 

0 

0 

0 

42.3  c. 

40.1  c. 

35.7  c. 

54.5  c. 

51.6  c. 

42.2  c. 

75  c. 

75  c. 

60  c. 

jight  white 

Light  white 

Light  white 

5.39* 

6.58* 

1.13 

9.3 

10.7 

12.3 

1040 

1290 

1161 

1340 

1580 

1650 

1600 

1810 

391 

496 

510 

0.94 

0.99 

0.98 

86.2 

96.0 



93.7 

90.0 

*  The  higher  percentages  of  carbon  in  these  two  tests  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  units 
were  being  overloaded  to  far  above  capacity,  as  rate  of  combustion  per  square  foot  of 
grate  area  will  show,  when  compared  with  rate  of  combustion  in  third  test,  May  15th. 


"  (e)  Start  with  a  very  low  air  supply  —about  |  to  1  turn  on  the  Milwaukee 
valves.  Increase  this  to  not  over  3  turns  as  the  fire  grows.  The  tendency 
is  to  have  an  excess  of  air. 

"  (/)  In  clinkering,  get  the  lumps  out  with  the  rake  as  much  as  possible, 
leaving  the  fine  stuff  behind. 

"  (g)  The  careful  handling  of  firing  tools  is  a  matter  of  much  importance, 
and  should  be  impressed  on  the  firemen  from  the  start. 


390     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  (h)  The  life  of  the  grates  will  be  lengthened  by  shutting  off  the  air  valve 
tight  during  clinkering,  and  then  opening  it  slowly. 

"  (i)  If  a  fire  is  being  banked  for  a  short  time,  say  eight  hours,  leave  the 
back  hearth  clean.  If  it  is  going  to  be  banked  for  a  long  time,  so  that  new  fires 
will  have  to  be  started,  one  charge  can  be  left  on  the  back  hearth,  because  it 
will  burn  up  before  the  furnace  is  cleaned  and  started  again. 

"  (j)  In  filling  the  charging  holes,  put  rubbish  near  the  bottom  and  ashes 
on  top.  This  will  tend  to  throw  the  ashes  forward  and  prevent  heavy  clinkers 
at  the  back.  Rubbish  can  be  burned  rapidly  under  natural  draft  with  the 
charging  hoppers  open,  so  that  large  quantities  can  be  put  in  at  a  time. 

"  (k)  The  fire,  if  hot  and  in  good  condition,  should  be  built  up  rapidly  at 
the  start,  so  as  to  cover  the  castings  before  they  become  heated. 

"  (/)  Tools  should  be  handled  as  near  their  center  of  gravity  as  possible." 

TABLE  123. — Comparison  op  Working  Elements 
OF  West  New  Brighton  and  Clifton  Incinerators 


Cost 

Pounds 

Pounds 

Percentage 

per  ton 

burned 

burned 

of  time 

for 

per 

per 

furnace 

supervision 

furnace 

square  foot 

doors  were 

and 

per  man 

of  grate 

open 

labor 

per  hour 

per  liour 

West  New  Brighton,  1908. . 

$0.76 

1357 

54.3 

73.7* 

Clifton,  1913 

0.41 

3330 

144.2 

5.1 

Obtained  after  official  tests. 


•    E.     BY-PRODUCTS 

In  several  reports  that  have  been  made  on  improved  refuse  disposal 
works  a  revenue  has  been  included,  which  could  be  derived  from  the 
utilization  of  steam  produced  in  operation  and  the  sale  of  clinker 
and  flue  dust.  In  some  works,  following  the  recommendations  of 
these  reports,  the  apparatus  for  utilizing  the  products  of  high-tempera- 
ture incineration  have  not  been  put  in.  The  expected  revenue  was  not 
forthcoming,  and  consequently,  financial  disappointment  resulted.  It 
is  desirable,  therefore,  in  most  cases,  to  determine  the  cost  of  making 
the  by-products  useful,  and  also  to  estimate  the  market  value  for  them, 
so  that  their  true  value  for  each  particular  locality  can  be  stated. 

The  principal  methods  of  utilizing  clinker  are  mentioned  on  page 
393.  Most  of  these  methods  involve  the  crushing  and  screening  of 
the  clinker;  in  some  it  is  ground  fine  in  mortar  mills.  A  few  methods 
for  utilization  are  described  more  fully  below,  the  data  being  taken 
largely  from  "  Modern  Destructor  Practice,"  by  W.  F.  Goodrich. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  391 

1.  Steam. — The  extent  and  kind  of  utilization  of  steam  depends 
somewhat  on  the  quantity  produced.  Statistics  of  the  quantity 
produced  under  various  conditions  of  operation  have  already  been 
given  in  this  chapter.  The  use  to  be  made  of  the  steam  now  remains 
to  be  considered. 

Practically  all  incinerators  that  burn  mixed  refuse  can  produce 
steam.  Some  plants,  and  chiefly  the  smaller  ones,  may  not  furnish 
more  than  enough  to  operate  the  works.  The  larger  the  plant  the 
more  economically  can  the  greater  quantity  of  steam  produced  be 
utilized. 

In  Europe  we  find  a  variety  of  uses,  including  the  partial  or  com- 
plete operation  of  electric  lighting  plants,  electric  railway  systems, 
sewage  pumping,  and  water  pumping  stations.  The  irregularity  in 
the  production  of  steam  demands  a  utilization  which  requires  no  regu- 
lar and  constant  power,  such  as  grinding  clinker  for  mortar,  crushing 
for  use  on  roads,  making  artificial  stones  and  slabs,  fertilizers,  ice, 
loading  storage  batteries,  etc.  The  first  incinerators  where  the  heat 
was  utiUzed  to  produce  electricity  were  those  at  Shoreham  (England) 
and  Westmount  (Canada). 

The  success  of  these  products  in  Europe  has  influenced  American 
practice,  and  steam  boilers  have  been  built  as  integral  parts  of  most 
of  the  high-temperature  refuse  incinerators  in  America.  At  only  a 
few  of  them,  however,  has  steam  as  yet  been  used  to  produce  a 
revenue. 

If  steam  is  used  for  generating  electricity,  and  particularly  in 
smaller  plants,  it  is  advisable  to  put  in  electric  accumulators,  to 
average  the  production  and  increase  the  dependable  power;  or  it 
may  be  preferred  to  add  an  auxiliary  furnace  for  coal,  oil,  or  gas  firing. 
The  power  required  to  operate  an  incinerator  has  varied  from  one- 
sixth  to  one-third  of  the  entire  power  which  it  has  produced,  depending 
on  the  design  and  the  way  in  which  the  works  have  been  conducted. 

In  selecting  a  method  for  utilizing  steam  from  an  incinerator,  it  is 
necessary  first  to  consider  its  rate  of  production.  As  refuse  has  so 
variable  a  calorific  value,  the  rate  of  steam  production  will  not  be 
uniform,  as  shown  by  the  Milwaukee  test.  Furthermore,  a  refuse 
incinerator  may  not  have  material  delivered  to  it  continuously  for 
operation,  as  the  collection  is  suspended  on  holidays  and  Sundays. 
The  total  quantity  of  refuse  incinerated  in  Milwaukee  during  1916 
is  shown  in  Table  124. 

The  surplus  steam  at  the  Milwaukee  incinerator  is  converted  into 
electric  power  and  used  to  pump  flushing  water  into  the  Milwaukee 
River  (see  Table  125).  This  is  a  favorable  sort  of  load  for  an  inciner- 
ator, because  the  pumps  can  be  shut  down  without  objection  at  time? 


392    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


when  the  incinerator  is  not  working.  When  the  steam  is  used  for 
pumping  water  or  sewage,  or  for  lighting,  and  it  requires  regular 
service  at  certain  hours,  or  continuous  twenty-four-hour  service,  it  is 
advisable  to  have  supplementary  sources  of  power  at  the  incinerator, 
as  at  Westmount.  If  the  pumps  are  operated  by  electric  motors, 
the  additional  power  can  come  from  other  power  plants.  With 
steam-driven  pumps,  stand-by  boilers  are  required.  In  most  cases, 
the  incineration  furnishes  only  a  part  of  the  steam  required  for  outside 
purposes.     Under  these  conditions,  however,  more  of  the  incinerator 

TABLE    124.— Total   Refuse    Incineeated    in    Milwaukee 
(City  and  Private  Collections),  1916 


Month 

Total  hours 
operated 

Total  pounds, 
mixed  refuse 
incinerated 

Average  evapora- 
tion per  pound  of 
mixed  refuse 

January 

February. ....... 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Totals 

608 
592 
648 
656 
680 
656 
640 
680 
656 
664 
656 
648 

8,689,780 
8,136,140 
8,688,100 
7,537,720 
9,335,800 
9,553,680 
9,640,020 
10,766,800 
10,160,360 
9,748,820 
7,770,000 
8,523,500 

1.784 
1.802 
2.060 
1.494 
1.547 
1.887 
1.771 
1.873 
1.924 
1.954 
1.771 
1.741 

7784 

108,550,720 

1.794 

Average  percentage  of  refuse  incinerated  during  1916:   Garbage,  69.92% ;   ashes,  23.92% ; 
rubbish,  5.85%;  manure,  0.13%,. 

steam  can  be  used  than  otherwise,  as  it  will  not  be  necessary  to  keep 
the  load  wholly  below  a  safe  minimum  steam  output.  The  irregulari- 
ties in  the  rate  of  production  of  the  incinerator  steam  are  balanced 
by  the  larger  quantity  obtained  from  the  additional  coal-fired  boilers. 

An  interesting  use  for  steam  has  been  suggested  at  Milwaukee  and 
at  New  York,  namely,  to  operate  ice  plants,  but  not  actually  tried. 
Yet  it  would  seem  to  be  especially  appropriate,  because  the  applica- 
tion can  be  adapted  so  readily  to  a  varying  production  of  steam. 
The  same  may  be  said  of  loading  storage  batteries. 

The  utilization  of  waste  heat  from  garbage  furnaces  is  seldom 
attempted.     At   Minneapolis,   where   the  furnace  is   water-jacketed 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


393 


and  the  grates  are  made  of  water  tubes,  the  heat  is  used  merely  to 
warm  the  feed-water  for  a  boiler.  This  pre-heating  is  done  in  the  walls 
and  grates  of  the  furnace.  At  other  plants,  water  is  heated  to  be 
used  in  washing  wagons  and  for  other  cleaning  at  the  plant. 

2.  Clinker.— At  many  incinerators,  particularly  in  England  and 
Germany,  crushed  clinker  is  made,  to  be  used  in  place  of  broken  stone 
or  gravel,  for  ballast  or  aggregate  in  concrete,  for  paving  and  building 
blocks,  flagstones,  and  bricks,  as  mentioned  below.     It  has  been  found 

TABLE   125. — Electric   Power   Delivered 

FROM    the    Milwaukee    Incinerator    Power    Plant 

TO  Operate  the  Milwaukee  River  Flushing  Plant 

During  1918  and  1919. 

Water  lifted  2.7  ft. 


Month 

Hours 

operating 

flushing 

station 

Kilowatts 

operating 

flushing 

station 

Kilowatt-hours 

delivered  to 

flushing 

station 

1918 

1919 

1918 

1919 

1918 

1919 

January 

February 

March J 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October    

November 

December 

0.4 

No  flush 

1.0 
148.1 
409.2 
207.1 

208.4 
No  flush 

ing  neces 

15.2 
283.1 
500.1 
594.0 
569.5 
499.1 
420.6 
137.5 
ing  neces 

sary 

340.0 
330.0 
330.0 
330.0 

320.0 

sary 

340.0 
320.0 
297.3 
282.3 
274.0 
282.2 
291.4 
271.0 

242 

340 

48,922 

135,180 

68,393 

66,773 

5,212 
90,640 
148,824 
167,680 
156,160 
140,800 
122,880 
38,400 

especially  useful  for  concrete  in  pavement  foundations  under  a  wearing 
surface,  and  for  sewage  filter  beds.  Fine  screenings  have  been  used 
also  for  surfacing  smooth  pavements  and  between  car  tracks  to  reduce 
slipperiness.  Fine  ashes  screened  from  the  clinker  at  Portland,  Ore. 
(1916)  were  sold  as  a  fertilizer.  In  Zurich,  Switzerland,  they  are  used 
as  a  disinfectant  in  outside  toilets  or  earth  closets. 

Flue  dust  has  not  as  many  possibilities  for  utilization  as  clinker. 
A  sample  from  the  Milwaukee  incinerator  was  submitted  to  an  asphalt 
chemist,  who  reported  that  it  was  a  satisfactory  material  to  use  as  a 
filler  in  asphalt  paving  mixtures. 


394    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


An  excellent  record  of  clinker  utilization  has  been  made  by  the 
Glasgow  Corporation,  as  shown  in  Table  126.  The  revenue  shown  in 
this  table  is  equivalent  to  approximately  60  cents  per  ton  of  clinker 
sold.  Some  revenue  from  clinker  has  also  been  received  at  a  few 
American  incinerators,  as  at  Seattle  and  West  New  Brighton. 

TABLE  126.— Revenue  from  Crushed  and  Screened  Clinker, 
Glasgow,  Scotland 


Year 

Tons  sold 

Revenue 

1901 

9,753.2 

$5,495.00 

1902 

9,332.9 

4,885.00 

1903 

11,938.3 

7,060.00 

1904 

15,292.0 

7,950.00 

1905 

14,693.0 

8,465.00 

1906 

17,635.0 

10,880.00 

1907 

13,975.0 

8,140.00 

1908 

13,307.0 

8,555.00 

1909 

13,807.0 

8,895.00 

1910 

11,768.7 

7,910.00 

All  the  above  uses  have  been  tried  on  a  working  scale  and  found 
to  be  more  or  less  successful.  In  many  cases  a  net  revenue  has 
resulted.  The  question  of  clinker  utilization  should  always  be  con- 
sidered in  the  design  of  new  works.  Local  conditions  of  available 
dumping  areas,  and  opportunities  for  the  sale  of  products,  will  largely 
control  the  decision  as  to  whether  or  not  to  put  in  clinker-handling 
machinery. 

The  handling  of  the  clinker  from  the  furnace  to  the  dump,  to  the 
freight  car,  or  wagon,  is  also  of  importance,  when  considering  the  whole 
cost  of  operation.  At  many  plants,  the  clinker  car  is  pushed  by  hand 
to  the  dumping  place.  At  some  of  the  more  recent  plants  the  cars  are 
suspended  from  overhead  rails  and  operated  by  a  motor.  At  the 
Westmount  incinerator,  the  clinker  car  bodies  are  taken  to  the  dump 
near  the  building  by  an  overhead  cable.  The  loaded  cars  are  pushed 
under  the  cableway  and  the  bodies  are  picked  up  by  an  electrically- 
operated  carriage  controlled  from  switches  in  the  building.  The 
carriage  takes  the  car  body  to  the  dump,  unloads  it,  and  returns  it  to 
the  building. 

Cars  for  handling  hot  clinker  need  careful  design  and  construction. 
Standard  contractors'  dump  cars,  with  a  capacity  of  1  cu.  yd.,  did  not 
last  more  than  four  months  at  Milwaukee,  when  they  had  become  so 
distorted  that  they  could  not  be  dumped.     Cars  with  cast-iron  bodies 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  395 

were  tried,  but  were  found  to  be  too  heavy.  The  car  body  finally 
adopted  consisted  of  a  frame  made  of  4  by  4-in.  angles  to  which  plates 
of  i-in.  wrought  iron  were  bolted.  When  the  plates  became  bent, 
they  were  taken  off  and  straightened. 

3.  Paving  Blocks. — Experimental  work,  on  a  considerable  scale, 
for  making  paving  blocks  of  clinker  and  asphalt,  has  been  conducted 
at  the  Kensington  incinerator  in  London.  The  process  and  results 
are  described  by  Goodrich,  as  follows: 

"  The  clinker  is  taken  direct  from  the  cells  and  fed  into  a  powerful  grinding 
mill,  where  it  is  ground  sufficiently  to  pass  a  fine  screen.  The  screened  mate- 
rial is  then  fed,  by  means  of  horizontal  pushers,  into  the  lower  part  of  a  steel 
elevator,  which  is  encased  in  steel  sheeting,  and  is  elevated  to  the  first  floor  of 
the  building,  and  passed  through  a  shoot  into  a  revolving  steel  dryer,  where 
the  screened  clinker  is  subjected  to  an  intense  heat.  Passing  from  the  dryer, 
it  is  again  elevated  to  the  floor  above,  and  is  then  fed  into  a  measuring  hopper 
having  a  bottom-lever  discharge.  While  this  part  of  the  process  is  taking 
place,  the  ground  asphalt  is  being  prepared.  The  asphalt  is  hoisted  to  the 
top  floor  of  the  building  and  fed  into  large  melting  vats,  which  are  of  special 
construction,  arranged  with  heating  coils  and  a  superheated  steam  supply  for 
the  melting  of  the  asphalt  and  for  maintaining  the  same  at  a  high  tempera- 
ture.    When  in  a  suitable  condition  a  supply  of  residumn  oil  is  introduced. 

"  From  the  melting  tanks  the  mixture  passes  into  a  conical  measuring  ves- 
sel; when  the  desired  volume  is  reached,  this  vessel  is  carried  by  means  of  a 
mono  rail  to  the  mixer,  into  which  the  ground  clinker  and  asphalt  mixture  are 
simultaneously  introduced  and  thoroughly  mixed.  The  mixer  is  of  strong 
construction,  being  made  in  steel  boiler  plate,  and  is  provided  with  pug  arms 
and  substantial  gearing. 

"  When  thoroughly  mixed  at  an  even  temperature  the  material  is  dis- 
charged into  a  steel  shoot  which  communicates  with  the  block  press. 

"  The  block  press  is  of  massive  construction,  and  exerts  a  pressure  of  100 
tons' upon  each  block;  the  press  is  automatic  in  action;  as  one  hopper  is  fiUed 
by  the  men  in  charge,  another  comes  under  the  dies  of  the  press,  and  as  each 
block  is  formed  it  is  pushed  forward  over  a  smooth  iron  table  and  conveyed 
to  the  cooling  tank. 

"  For  the  manufacture  of  1000  paving  blocks  about  3|  tons  of  clinker  are 
used  with  1  ton  of  asphalt,  the  weight  of  the  finished  blocks  being  about  4  tons; 
the  loss  in  weight  is  accounted  for  by  the  moisture.  The  cost  per  1000  paving 
blocks  is  about  £4  for  material  and  14  shillings  for  labour. 

"It  is  claimed  that  the  blocks  are  resilient,  as  noiseless  as  wood  paving, 
non-porous,  sanitary,  and  unaffected  by  temperature.  Upwards  of  one  mil- 
lion of  these  blocks  have  been  laid  in  Queen's  Gate,  Hyde  Park,  W.,  Ledbury 
Road,  Bayswater,  and  in  Stamford  Street,  near  to  the  Royal  Albert  Hall, 
Kensington,  W." 

4.  Flagstones  for  Sidewalks. — The  clinker  is  used  in  making 
flagstones.     It  is  first  crushed  to  about  |  in.  in  size  and  is  then  mixed 


396     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


wet  with  Portland  cement  in  the  proportion  of  one  part  of  cement  to 
three  parts  of  broken  clinker.  The  mixture  is  then  placed  in  an  iron 
mould  to  make  a  slab  from  2^  to  3  in.  thick.  The  surface  dimensions 
vary  from  2  ft.  square  to  2  ft.  by  3  ft.  The  mixture  is  compacted 
in  the  mould  with  a  heavy  maul  or  under  a  hydraulic  press.  The 
surface  is  troweled  smooth  or  given  a  finish  of  granite  chippings. 
The  flags  should  stand  for  four  to  six  months  in  summer  weather 
before  being  used.  At  the  Bristol  Corporation  Works,  in  England, 
it  is  stated  that  one  ton  of  clinker  and  ^  ton  of  cement  will  make 
16  sq.  yd.  of  flags.  The  daily  output  is  97  sq.  yd.  per  working  day 
of  9.5  hours.  At  Liverpool  it  is  stated  that  three  men  and  an  appren- 
tice, working  with  a  hydraulic  press,  could  make  about  45  sq.  yd.  of 
flags  per  day.  At  this  plant,  53,684  sq.  yd.  of  flags  were  made  in  1909. 
Maxwell  reports  the  following  strengths  for  machine-made  clinker  con- 
crete flags,  2.5  in.  thick.    (He  does  not  mention  the  other  dimensions): 


Age  of  flag 

Breaking  load 

applied  at  center 

of  flag 

4  months 

1804  lb. 

4       ' 
4       ' 
4       ' 
4       ' 
4      ' 
6       ' 
6      ' 
4       ' 
4       ' 
4       ' 

1474  ' 
1742  ' 
1917  ' 
1608  ' 
1752  ' 
2061   ' 
1966  ' 
1859  ' 
1659  ' 
1589  ' 

Average 

1 

1766  lb. 

A  three-mould  hydraulic  flag  press  is  made  by  Fielding  and  Piatt, 
Ltd.,  in  England.  This  method  of  clinker  utilization  is  applied  in  more 
than  a  dozen  cities  of  England,  where  the  cost  of  making  these  flag- 
stones has  been  about  40  cents  per  square  yard. 

5.  Bricks. — Making  building  brick  of  crushed  clinker  and  lime 
or  cement  is  practiced  less  extensively  than  making  flags.  Never- 
theless, it  is  a  promising  method  of  utilization.  There  is  a  plant  in 
operation  at  Nelson,  England,  with  a  capacity  of  about  20,000  bricks 
per  week.  This  plant  comprises  a  ball  mill  for  grinding  lime,  a  9-ft. 
perforated  grinding  mill  for  clinker,  a  clinker  screen,  a  patent  hydrating 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  397 

mixer,  a  final  mixer,  brickwork  silos,  an  "  Emperor  "  press,  and  a 
hardening  chamljer  with  a  capacity  for  7000  bricks.  The  plant  is 
electrically  driven,  requiring  about  28  h.p.  for  grinding  and  12  h.p. 
for  mixing  and  brick  making.  The  clinker  is  ground,  mixed,  and 
deposited  in  the  silos  on  three  days  of  the  week,  and  the  bricks  are 
made  on  the  others.  The  steaming  of  the  bricks  is  done  at  night  with 
steam  made  by  the  incinerator.  Three  men  are  required  to  operate 
the  plant,  and  4.5  tons  of  lime  are  used  for  18,000  bricks.  The  time 
required  for  the  whole  process  is  from  thirty  to  forty-eight  hours. 
Tests  of  these  bricks  are  recorded  in  Table  127;  the  cost  of  making 
them  was  about  $4  per  thousand. 


F.  PLANTS  BUILT  AND  RESULTS  OBTAINED 

Many  successful  applications  of  the  principles,  designs,  and  practice 
described  herein  have  been  made,  and  in  both  America  and  Europe 
many  examples  exist.  The  foreign  plants  have  been  designed  for 
incinerating  a  mixture  of  garbage,  rubbish,  and  ashes.  In  the  United 
States  there  are  a  number  that  incinerate  a  mixture  of  only  garbage  and 
rubbish — ashes  being  separately  disposed  of  by  dumping.  The  heat 
generated  by  the  latter  mixture  is  much  less,  so  that  a  utilization  of 
steam  is  frequently  impracticable  without  the  addition  of  extra  fuel. 
Formerly,  there  were  many  furnaces  in  the  United  States  where 
garbage  alone  was  burned.  As  this  always  required  the  addition  of 
coal,  oil,  or  gas  to  destroy  the  garbage,  thereby  adding  considerable 
expense,  such  garbage  furnaces  are  frequently  operated  at  relatively 
low  temperatures. 

We  shall  describe  a  few  incinerators  and  garbage  furnaces  which 
are  tj^pical  and  indicate  the  progress  that  has  been  made. 

1.  "West  New  Brighton.^ — The  refuse  incinerator  built  in  1908  at 
West  New  Brighton,  under  the  direction  of  Mr.  J.  T.  Fetherston,  is 
one  of  the  first  plants  in  America,  and  is  an  excellent  example  of  the 
hand-charged,  back-fired  type.  It  has  a  rated  capacity  of  60  tons 
of  mixed  refuse  per  twenty-four  hours.  The  plant  is  on  the  water- 
front, about  250  ft.  north  of  the  main  street,  and  serves  a  district 
extending  along  the  northern  shore  of  Staten  Island  for  about  4 
miles.  The  area  of  the  district  is  about  5000  acres,  and  the  popula- 
tion served  about  35,000.  The  population  is  mixed  residential,  busi- 
ness, and  manufacturing,  and  produces  about  1.6  tons  of  mixed  refuse 
per  1000  population  per  day.  During  1911  this  refuse  was  composed 
of  68%  of  ashes,  24.9%  of  garbage,  and  7.1%  of  rubbish. 

The  incinerator  is  housed  in  a  three-story,  reinforced  concrete 


398     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE  127. — ^Tk.sts  of  Clinker  Bricks  Made  at  Nelson,  England,  1914 

(Goodrich,  "Modern  Destructor  Practice,"  p.  133.) 


Description 


Dimensions, 
in  inches 


Area 
of  base. 


square 
inches 


Compressive  strength, 
in  pounds 


Cracked 
slightly 


Cracked 
generally 


Crushed 


Composition  brick,  gray,  no 
recess,  made  from  destructor 
clinker  and  6%  lime 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 

do. 


2.77,  9.00  by  4.36 
2.95,  9.02  by  4.40 
2 .  80,  9  .  00  by  4 .  34 
2.63,  9.02  by  4.36 
2 .  62,  9 .  02  by  4 .  36 
2.80,  9.00  by  4.36 


Mean 

Pounds  per  square  inch. 
Tons  per  square  foot .  .  . 


39.24 
39.69 
39.06 
39.33 
39.33 
39.24 

39.31 


222 . 000 
199 . 900 
154 . 600 
150.900 
134 . 500 
130.700 

165.417 
4208 
270.6 


259. 
230, 
222, 
206 
204. 
159. 


800 
800 
700 
000 
700 
000 


213.833 

5440 
349.8 


262 . 000 
248 . 000 
222 . 700 
206.000 
204 . 700 
159.000 

217.067 

5522 
355.1 


Tests  for  Absorption 


Description 


Before 
immersion 


After 
24  hours 
immersion 


Difference 


Percentage 

of 
absorption 


Composition  brick,  gray,  no  recess 

do. 
Do.,  recessed  one  side 


Pounds 
9.330 
8.510 
8.573 


Pounds 
9.679 
9.273 
9.195 


Pounds 
0.367 
0.763 
0.622 


3.93 
8.97 
7.26 


6.72 


Comparison  o.^   Analyses  of  Lime  Bricks  and  Cement  Concrete 


Clinker  and  lime  bricks  made  with  about 
81%  of  lime 


Lime 17.0% 

Silica 32.5 

Alumina 14.8 

Ferric  oxide 18.2 

Magnesia  and  alkalies 5.5 

Water  in  combination 12.0 

100.0% 


Clinker  and  cement  concrete  made  from 
1  cement  and  5  clinker 


Lime 16.8% 

Silica 32 . 2 

Alumina 14 . 1 

!■  erric  oxide 16.8 

Magnesia  and  alkalies 5.8 

Water  in  combination 14,3 

100.0% 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  399 

building,  about  50  ft.  sfjuare  and  45  ft.  high.  The  concrete  chimney 
connected  with  the  furnace  is  125  ft.  high,  and  is  lined  with  fire-brick 
to  a  height  of  20  ft.  On  the  top  floor  of  the  building  is  the  dumping 
room,  which  is  approached  by  an  incHned  roadway  from  the  main 
street.  The  storage  pit  is  reached  through  a  large  doorway  fitted 
with  a  vertical  steel  roller  door.  The  dumping  platform  is  about  40  ft. 
square.  Extending  across  the  top  of  the  pit  there  are  two  runways  on 
which  the  wagons  are  backed  before  they  are  dumped.  The  pit  has 
a  capacity  of  120  cu.  yd.,  and  is  divided  into  four  sections,  so  that 
different  grades  of  mixed  refuse  can  be  stored  separately,  if  desired. 

The  storage  pit  opens  on  the  level  of  the  charging  floor  at  the  back 
of  the  furnace.  There  is  just  sufficient  space  between  the  pit  openings 
and  the  furnace  doors  to  permit  of  easy  shoveling. 

The  furnace  comprises  four  grates,  a  combustion  chamber,  a 
water-tube  boiler,  an  air  heater,  and  the  necessary  connecting  flues, 
ashpits,  and  accessories.  Fig.  94  shows  a  plan  and  sections  through 
the  furnace,  and  Fig.  95  is  a  general  view  of  the  plant. 

Each  grate  slopes  about  3  in.  toward  the  clinkering  door,  and 
is  made  up  of  six  cast-iron  slabs,  about  5  ft.  long  and  10  in.  wide,  set 
side  by  side,  and  drilled  with  two  lines  of  \-\n.  holes.  This  gives  an 
individual  grate  area  of  25  sq.  ft.  Each  grate  is  surrounded  with  an 
inclined  cast-iron  curb.  The  top  of  the  furnace  is  arched  over  each 
grate,  so  that  an  undulating  fire-brick  surface  is  exposed  to  the  hot 
gases,  producing  a  reverberatory  effect,  and  thus  mixing  the  products 
of  combustion.  The  crown  of  the  arch  is  from  3  to  4  ft.  above  the 
grates. 

The  products  of  combustion  pass  over  the  several  grates  into  the 
combustion  chamber.  This  is  10  ft.  square,  and  nearly  20  ft.  deep, 
forming  a  pocket  for  collecting  dust. 

From  the  combustion  chamber,  the  products  of  combustion  pass 
to  a  183-h.p.  Babcock  and  Wilcox,  water-tube  boiler,  thence  to  the  air 
heater,  and  finally  to  the  chimney.  The  air  heater  consists  of  a  rect- 
angular box,  about  10  ft.  long  and  5  ft.  square,  filled  with  vertical 
tubes.  The  products  of  combustion  pass  through  these  tubes,  up  on 
one  side  of  a  central  partition  and  down  on  the  other.  The  air  for 
the  draft,  which  has  been  drawn  by  the  fan  from  the  various  rooms  in 
the  building,  is  forced  through  the  heater  in  the  spaces  between  the 
tubes  and  then  drawn  under  the  clinker  pits,  from  which  it  passes  either 
up  through  grates  in  the  clinker  pits  or  directly  into  the  ashpits  and 
thence  to  the  refuse  through  the  holes  in  the  grates. 

The  ventilating  system  is  arranged  so  that  all  the  air  can  be 
drawn  from  the  dumping  room,  from  the  clinkering  room,  or  from 
the  furnace  room,  as  desired.     The  plant  is  equipped  with  a  full 


400     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


set  of  recording  instruments,  and  valuable  records  of  operation  are 
available. 

The  clinker  is  withdrawn  by  hand  through  openings  in  the  front 
of  the  furnace,  and  dropped  through  trap  doors  into  a  clinker  cooling 


SECTIONAL  SECTIONAL 

FLAN  PLAN 

THRU.-D-P         THRU.G-fl 


Fig.  94. — Plan  and  Sections,  West  New  Brighton  Incinerator. 

chamber  under  the  ashpits.  From  the  cooling  chamber  it  is  taken 
in  wheelbarrows  to  the  dump,  and  has  been  used  for  making  concrete 
and  for  filling. 

The  daily  report  sheets  of  the  operations  conducted  at  the  West 
New  Brighton  and  Clifton  incinerators  include  the  following: 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


401 


Title  and  name  of  employee  and  his  badge  number;  the  time  of  his 
arrival  and  departure  and  the  hours  he  worked,  together  with  the  rate 
of  wages  and  their  amount.  His  absences  and  vacations  are  also 
recorded.  His  work  is  stated  under  the  headings:  Supervision, 
operating  machinery,  feeding  furnace,  removing  clinker,  wheeling 
clinker,  non-productive,  weighing  refuse,  watching,  etc. 

Separate  accounts  are  kept  of  each  repair  job,  and  also  of  all  sup- 
plies consumed  and  materials  used. 

2.  Clifton. — The  refuse  incinerator  at  Clifton,  on  Staten  Lsland, 
N.  Y.,  completed  in  1913,  is  a  development  from  experiments  at  the 


Fig.  95. — View  of  West  New  Brighton  Incinerator. 


West  New  Brighton  plant  with  mechanical  appliances  for  charging 
and  clinkering.  The  plant  is  an  excellent  example  of  the  mechanically- 
operated  type.  It  consists  of  two  45-ton  furnace  units  with  two  150- 
h.p.  boilers,  one  50-kw.  electric  generator,  a  hydraulic  pump,  an 
accumulator,  a  clinker  crusher  and  screen,  and  other  accessories. 
Each  furnace  comprises  three  grates,  each  fitted  with  hydraulically- 
operated  charging,  clinkering,  and  clinker-discharging  devices,  and 
three  clinker-cooling  chambers.  The  plant  is  about  two  blocks  north 
of  a  main  street  and  within  a  block  of  dwelling  houses. 

The  furnaces  are  housed  in  a  three-story  concrete  and  brick  build- 
ing, with  a  brick  chimney  and  an  inclined  roadway  approach.  The 
collection  wagons  drive  to  the  upper  floor,  and  dump  from  either  of 


402     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

two  sides  into  a  storage  pit  near  the  center  of  the  building.  The  pit 
opens  on  the  charging  floor  below.  The  furnaces  are  set  on  each  side 
of  the  storage  pit.  Just  below  the  charging  floor,  between  the  pit  and 
the  furnaces,  there  are  six  charging  pans,  one  for  each  grate.  The 
refuse  is  thrown  into  them  by  the  firemen.  A  hydraulically-operated 
ram  pushes  the  loaded  pan  into  the  furnace  above  the  grate,  which  it 
covers  completely.  When  the  pan  is  withdrawn,  the  back  is  held  in 
place,  so  that  the  refuse  falls  off  the  end  and  is  distributed  evenly 
over  the  fire. 

Clinkering  is  accomplished  by  pulling  out  the  grate  and  allowing 
the  clinker  to  fall  into  the  cooling  chamber  below.  The  grate  is  made 
of  channel-shaped,  flat  grate-bars,  with  two  ridge-bars  projecting 
about  6  in.  above  it.  These  grate-bars  are  carried  on  a  strong  cast- 
iron  frame  attached  to  the  piston  rod,  the  frame  running  on  rollers. 
The  ridge-bars  form  weak  sections  in  the  clinker,  for  easier  breaking. 
Each  ridge-bar  turns  up  to  form  a  nose  or  hump  at  its  extreme  end. 
As  these  humps  pass  through  the  clinker  thej'^  break  it  up  into  small 
lumps.  The  ram  pulls  the  grate  into  a  closed  chamber,  to  prevent 
the  entrance  of  cold  air.  After  the  clinker  has  fallen  into  the  cooling 
chamber,  the  grate  is  put  back  into  its  regular  position. 

The  clinker-discharging  device  consists  of  a  piston  or  pusher, 
which  fits  the  cooling  chamber.  A  forward  stroke  of  this  pusher 
forces  the  clinker  out  through  the  clinker  door  into  a  car  or  skip  for 
removal.  The  clinker  cars  are  suspended  from  an  overhead  rail  which 
extends  to  the  crusher,  set  in  a  pit  below  the  ground  level.  The 
crushed  clinker  is  elevated  to  screens,  and  the  screened  clinker  is 
stored  in  an  elevated  bin  for  delivery  to  wagons.  A  baling  press  for 
tin  cans  is  also  provided. 

The  products  of  combustion  pass  through  combustion  chambers, 
boilers,  and  air  heaters  on  their  way  to  the  chimney.  These  parts  are 
arranged  substantially  as  in  the  New  Brighton  plant.  Ventilation 
is  provided  for  the  different  portions  of  the  building  in  connection 
with  the  forced  draft.  A  section  through  a  furnace  is  shown  in  Fig.  96. 
Fig.  97  is  a  general  view  of  the  plant. 

3.  Milwaukee. — In  1908,  after  a  thorough  studj^  of  the  problem, 
the  construction  of  an  incinerator  of  300  tons  daily  capacity  was 
recommended  to  the  city.  It  was  built  in  1909,  and  its  operation 
began  in  1910.  It  is  the  largest  incinerator  in  the  United  States.  The 
refuse  of  the  city  is  divided  into  two  classes:  First,  garbage,  which  is 
delivered  to  the  incinerator  from  the  entire  city;  and  second,  the  ashes 
and  rubbish,  delivered  only  from  about  one-third  of  the  city.  Some 
manure  is  also  delivered. 

In   1917  the  average  percentages  of  refuse  incinerated  were  as 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


403 


follows:    Garbage,  08.8%;    ashes,  26.5%;    rubbish,  4.5%;    manure, 
0.17%.     Therefore,  the  proportion  of  the  ingredients  differs  from  that 


Fig.  96  — Section  through  Chfton  Incinerator. 


Fig.  97. — View  of  CHfton  Incinerator. 


generally  found  in  Europe  and  in  most  American  cities,  in  that  a 
much  larger  percentage  of  garbage  per  ton  must  be  incinerated. 
Table  128  shows  the  refuse  incinerated  monthly  and  also  the  average 
steam  production. 


404     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE    128. — Refuse   Incinerated   Monthly   in   Milwaukee   During 
1919  (City  and  Private  Collections);  and  Steam  Production 

Feed-water  pumped  to  boilers  at  average  temperature  of  180°  F. 


Month, 
1919 

Total  hours 
operated 

Total  pounds 

of  mixed 

refuse 

incinerated 

Total  pounds 

of  feed-water 

delivered 

Average 
evaporation,  or 

pounds  of 

steam  produced 

per  pound  of 

mixed  refuse 

January 

February 

March 

664 
608 
664 
656 
660 
640 
688 
664 
656 
680 
624 
656 

6,622,900 
5,139,760 
6,080,540 
5,704,240 
6,204,660 
7,255,140 
8,242,960 
8,700,160 
8,765,400 
8,263,340 
6,707,780 
6,717,640 

4,124,892 
3,876,635 
4,343,828 
4,805,690 
5,534,286 
6,242,760 
7,066,051 
6,782,052 
6,221,687 
6,177,100 
4,776,733 
4,304,452 

1.605 
1.325 
1.399 
1.186 
1.121 
1.162 
1.166 
1.282 
1.408 
1.345 
1.404 
1.560 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Totals 

7860 

84,404,520 

64,256,166 

1.315 

Analysis  of  refuse  incinerated  during  1919:  Garbage. . .  77.00% 

Ashes 18.70 

Rubbish...     4.23 
Manure ...     0 .  07 

The  plant  is  in  the  city,  at  the  mouth  of  the  Milwaukee  River,  and 
serves  a  population  of  about  450,000.  Figs.  98  and  99  show  a  general 
plan  and  both  longitudinal  and  cross-sections. 

The  building  is  about  100  ft.  square,  and  holds  four  furnace  units, 
each  of  which  consists  of  six  grates  or  cells,  a  combustion  chamber,  an 
air  heater,  and  a  water-tube  boiler.  To  keep  the  temperature  as 
uniform  as  practicable,  the  six  cells  are  divided  into  two  groups  of 
three  cells  each,  and  have  a  combustion  chamber  between  them. 
Each  grate  has  an  area  of  about  20  sq.  ft.,  and  is  backed  by  a  drying 
hearth.  Fans  drive  air  through  an  air  heater  and  then  through  the 
ashpit  to  the  fuel  on  the  grate  at  a  temperature  of  about  300°  Fahr., 
and  under  a  pressure  of  about  3  in.  of  water.  The  gases  go  through 
the  combustion  chambers  to  the  four  boilers.  These  are  of  the  hori- 
zontal, water-tube  type,  each  rated  at  200  h.p.  The  clinker  drawn 
from  the  grate  falls  through  a  trap  door  into  a  clinker  car  standing  on 
rails  in  the  basement. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


405 


I 


H 


>i-^- 

S^ — \ 

&?^ 

J 

^U  Z—^ 

.0- 

0 

- 

<      15'o"     > 

t-i    0      1- 

r 

0 

"  §  " 

IK 

0 

p 

0 

J    3 

-■7 

-r 

? 

Q 

B 

C       C 

23: 

b 

1 

S    HI 

□ 

u — ^ 

tl       ?  5 

»    cs 

D 

C3    0    2 

D      S 

0-^ 

0 

□ 

'■ 

=,     0     " 

to 

0 

0     P 

a      p  D. 

5' 

p  ? 

0 

-t 

5' 

~i 

E 
0* 

'■=  £ 

2      Z 

5; 

n 

a 

-59 

a 

IS    ^ 

a       B 

□                1 

20"; 

2   Tip 

■0=, 

Main  Flue 

\\ 

C5       C^ 

* 

_ 

\ 

»       S 

/     / 

1         / 

D 

B 

0       ^ 

□ 

n 

y       0 

B 

?o 

2 

"    1 

ta 
a      = 

0 

3n 

w 

Q 

Q          1? 

a 

•-1 

t 

< 

^-    '^    p 

Z.    p 
0     2 
0      g 

a 
D 

0 
0 

3 

1     °- 

cr 

i^lmpB 

[ 

Electrl 

Machine 

Koom 

4  of  Bldg 

B 

0 

' 

•^     0 

; 

0, 

n r" 

T 

PI 

406    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  407 

The  garbage,  being  collected  separately,  is  stored  by  itself  and 
drained,  thus  reducing  its  weight  by  from  7  to  9%.  It  is  further 
dried  on  the  drying  hearth  before  being  mixed  with  the  rubbish 
and  ashes. 

In  1917  the  average  evaporation  was  1.626  lb.  of  water  per  pound 
of  mixed  refuse.  In  1919  it  was  only  1.315.  The  power  utilization 
has  been  quite  irregular.  It  varied  in  1917  from  16,884  kw.-hr.  for 
November  to  198,249  kw.-hr.  for  August.  No  cUnker  utilization 
has  as  yet  been  attempted,  except  for  filling  in  at  the  shore  of  the  lake. 

Being  the  first  large  incinerator  built  in  America,  and  with  quite 
limited  funds,  a  number  of  expediencies  and  space  rest  actions  were 
adopted  which  could  readily  have  been  avoided  under  other  condi- 
tions. After  ten  years  of  service  the  plant  is  now  in  very  good  con- 
dition. Three  years  ago  hydraulic  cylinders  were  put  in  for  the  pur- 
pose of  operating  the  charging  doors.  Mr.  Samuel  A.  Greeley  was 
superintendent  of  the  plant  for  the  first  fifteen  months  of  operation. 
He  was  succeeded  by  Mr.  Joseph  E.  Roddy,  who  is  still  in  charge. 

4.  Berkeley, — The  Sterling  incinerator  at  Berkeley  (J.  J.  Jessup, 
City  Engineer),  was  built  in  1913.  The  plant  is  housed  in  a  steel 
and  reinforced  concrete  building  having  large  windows  and  con- 
venient doorways  for  access  to  the  refuse-receiving  pit  and  the  fur- 
nace room. 

The  incinerator  was  designed  by  Hughes  and  Sterling,  and  is  of  the 
top-feed  type  with  three  cells.  The  material  is  first  fed  to  a  drying 
hearth  behind  the  grate,  and  is  dragged  upon  the  latter  as  needed. 
High-pressure  forced  draft  supplies  the  air  under  the  fires.  Three 
grates  are  placed  side  by  side,  opening  one  into  the  other,  with  a 
common  combustion  chamber  at  one  end  in  which  the  temperature  is 
not  less  than  1200°  Fahr.  From  this  chamber  to  the  stack  the  gases 
pass  over  the  heating  surfaces  of  an  Abendroth-Root  water-tube 
boiler  and  then  through  a  regenerator  of  iron  and  steel  tubes  set  into 
the  flue.  The  forced  draft  is  supplied  by  a  blower,  and  the  air 
passes  between  the  heated  regenerator  tubes,  which  raise  its  tempera- 
ture to  above  350°. 

The  refuse  is  taken  from  the  dumping  pit  by  a  grab-bucket,  car- 
ried on  a  monorail  crane  running  on  an  I-beam  in  the  roof  space  of 
the  building.  The  bucket  dumps  into  one  of  the  three  steel  charging 
containers,  one  above  each  cell.  The  furnace  is  charged  by  hydraulic 
rams,  with  valves  controlled  from  the  stoking  floor. 

The  guaranties  for  the  plant  were:  That  it  shall  destroy  48  tons 
of  mixed  refuse  in  twenty-four  hours;  that  the  steam  generated  in 
the  boiler,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.,  shall  not  be  less  than  1  lb.  per 
pound  of  refuse  consumed;    that  the  minimum  temperature  in  the 


408     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

combustion  chamber  shall  not  be  less  than  1250°  Fahr.;  and  that  at 
least  53  lb.  of  refuse  per  square  foot  of  grate  area  per  hour  shall  be 
burned. 

The  performance  of  the  plant  during  the  official  test  exceeded  the 
guaranties,  and  during  the  subsequent  operation  was  quite  satisfactory 
as  to  complete  incineration  without  offense.  However,  its  use  was 
discontinued  for  a  time,  when  it  was  found  less  expensive  to  dump  all 
the  refuse  at  sea. 

5.  Savannah. — Plans  and  a  section  of  the  refuse  incinerator  at 
Savannah  are  shown  in  Fig.  100.  They  are  described  by  the  Chief 
Engineer  of  the  city,  Mr.  Conant. 

The  incinerator  is  of  the  Heenan-Froude  type,  and  was  completed 
in  March,  1914.  It  has  a  daily  capacity  of  130  tons,  including  gar- 
bage, rubbish,  ashes,  and  stable  sweepings.  The  plant  is  built  near 
the  city  water-works  pumping  station,  and  steam  from  its  boilers  is 
carried  by  a  pipe  directly  to  the  steam  header  in  the  water-works 
boiler  room. 

The  plant  consists  of  two  65-ton  furnaces,  and  each  unit  has  four 
cells,  about  28  in.  wide  on  the  bottom,  34  in.  at  the  top,  16  in.  deep,  and 
8  ft.  long.  Each  unit  has  a  separate  combustion  chamber  of  large 
size,  a  200-h.p.  Wickes  water-tube  boiler,  an  air  heater,  and  a  cen- 
trifugal fan  for  supplying  forced  draft.  The  cells  are  fitted  with 
trough  grates. 

The  contract  for  the  plant  included  the  construction  of  the  building 
in  which  it  is  housed,  a  receiving  pit  having  a  capacity  of  260  cu.  yd.,  a 
regenerator  or  pre-heater,  an  electric  hoist  for  transferring  the  refuse 
from  the  storage  pit  to  the  containers,  the  necessary  instruments  for 
measuring  and  recording  the  conditions  at  the  furnaces,  and  a  steam 
turbo  or  engine-driven  generator  of  75  kw.  to  supply  the  current  for 
lighting  the  plant  and  operating  the  motor. 

Each  cell  has  a  grate  area  of  20  sq.  ft.,  and  each  boiler  a  heating 
surface  of  2000  sq.  ft.  and  a  working  pressure  of  160  lb.  per  square 
inch.  The  stack,  of  radial  brick  construction,  is  150  ft.  high  and  6^  ft. 
inside  diameter  at  the  top.  The  receiving  storage  pit  is  32  ft.  long, 
11  ft.  wide,  and  20  ft.  deep.  The  refuse  is  raised  by  a  grab-bucket 
which  can  pick  it  up  from  any  part  of  the  pit  without  extra  handling. 
A  container,  in  which  the  material  is  deposited  by  the  grab-buckets,  is 
placed  over  each  cell.  Each  has  a  capacity  of  about  1  cu.  yd.,  and  is 
closed  by  horizontal  sliding  doors,  built  in  two  parts.  Each  cell 
receives  charges  of  about  1  cu.  yd.  The  space  above  the  grate  is  com- 
mon to  each  cell  and  to  the  combustion  chamber,  so  that  there  is  free 
interchange  of  heat  between  the  cells.  The  main  grates  are  of  heavy 
cast  iron,  and  are  perforated  so  as  to  give  proper  distribution  of  air 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


409 


CTvAvy^'i"!^ 


410     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

throughout  the  refuse,  and,  at  the  same  time,  secure  the  maximum 
cooling  effect  on  the  iron  supports.     The  clinker  car  is  of  special  design. 

The  superheater  is  of  the  Foster  type,  and  the  air  heater  is  at  the 
back  of  the  boilers.  The  air  for  the  forced  draft  is  taken  from  the 
ventilating  system  in  the  building. 

The  guaranties  for  the  plant  were:  That  it  shall  be  capable  of 
destroying,  under  normal  operation  and  without  additional  fuel, 
130  tons  of  mixed  refuse  in  twenty-four  hours;  that  no  obnoxious 
gases  shall  escape  from  the  chimney  or  the  building;  that  at 
no  time,  during  normal  operation,  shall  the  temperature  fall  below 
1250°  Fahr.;  that  an  average  temperature  of  1500°  Fahr.  shall 
be  maintained  in  the  combustion  chambers;  that  the  steam  gen- 
erated in  the  boilers,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.,  shall  not  be  less  than 
1.3  lb.  per  pound  of  refuse  consumed;  and  that  the  net  effective  boiler 
capacity  for  steam  utilization,  over  and  above  that  required  for  oper- 
ating the  plant,  shall  be  330  h.p.,  based  on  34.5  lb.  per  boiler  horse- 
power. 

The  cost  for  incineration  under  the  stated  conditions  was  not  to  be 
more  than  40.4  cents  per  ton.  The  refuse  to  be  burned  per  hour  per 
square  foot  of  grate  surface  was  not  to  be  less  than  68  lb. 

The  official  test  shows  that  all  the  guaranties  were  fulfilled.  The 
total  cost  of  the  plant  was  about  $125,000.  Regarding  the  operation, 
Mr.  Conant  says: 

"  All  the  refuse  brought  to  the  plant  is  weighed  and  then  dumped  into  the 
storage  hopper  at  the  ground  level.  It  is  taken  from  the  hopper  by  a  grab- 
bucket  operated  by  an  electric  transporter,  and  delivered  to  the  containers, 
one  of  which  is  located  over  each  cell  of  the  furnace.  At  the  bottom  of  the 
containers  is  a  solid  door,  operated  hydraulically,  the  operating  of  which  is 
done  on  the  stoking  floor,  which  enables  the  stokers  to  fill  their  grates  in  accord- 
ance with  the  requirements  of  their  fires. 

"  Stoking  is  done  through  a  supplementary  door,  which  avoids  the  necessity 
of  opening  the  large  door  through  which  the  clinker  is  withdrawn. 

"  The  clinker  formed  on  the  grate  is  removed  by  semi-mechanical  means. 
The  sides  of  the  grates  diverge  slightly  from  the  rear  to  the  stoking  door. 
There  is  a  large  bar  to  which  is  fastened  a  plate  which  forms  an  upturned 
hoe  laid  on  the  bottom  of  the  grate  before  the  first  charge  is  dropped  upon  it, 
and  the  clinker  is  pulled  out  bodily  by  power  obtained  from  a  hydrauJicaUy- 
driven  winch  onto  a  hand-pushed  car,  which  is  pulled  over  a  level,  paved  sur- 
face to  the  dump.  This  method  of  clinkering  permits  of  the  clinker  being 
removed  from  the  grates  within  from  three  to  four  minutes.  The  platform  at 
the  dump  is  on  the  same  level  as  the  stoking  floor,  the  clinker  is  dropped  upon 
a  sheet-iron  platform,  and  is  scraped  into  wagons  or  carts  and  hauled  away. 
While  withdrawing  the  clinker,  regulating  valves  are  operated  so  as  to  shut 
off  the  air  supply  from  the  air  heater. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  411 

"  One  great  advantage  of  the  furnaces  at  this  plant,  over  furnaces  con- 
structed at  some  other  cities,  is  that  a  deep  fire  is  maintained,  which  enables 
the  wet  portion  of  the  refuse  to  be  more  thoroughly  dried  and  destroyed  than 
on  shallow  grates.  In  my  opinion,  the  success  of  this  plant  Ls  partly  due  to 
this  particular  feature. 

"  The  average  time  of  burning  a  charge  is  twenty  minutes.  Usually  six 
charges  are  made  for  each  clinker  produced  on  the  grates.  When  the  plant  is 
working  at  its  full,  or  nearly  full,  capacity,  the  labor  required  is  operated  in 
three  shifts  of  eight  hours  each.  With  the  destruction  of  from  60  to  75  tons 
of  garbage,  only  one  unit  is  used  with  three  shifts  of  labor.  This  is  better 
than  to  use  two  shifts,  working  both  furnaces,  for  a  more  even  supply  of  steam 
is  delivered  to  the  pumping  station. 

"  During  July  and  August,  when  the  delivery  of  watermelon  rinds  averages 
20  tons  daily,  this  amount  of  extra  wet  garbage,  bringing  the  percentage  of 
moisture  above  the  guaranty,  is  only  destroyed  by  adding  dry  material  which 
has  sufficient  heat  units  to  offset  the  excessive  moisture  in  the  garbage.  This 
is  brought  about  by  adding  10%  in  weight  of  cinders  collected  from  manu- 
facturing plants.  With  the  addition  of  these  cinders  complete  combustion  of 
the  garbage  is  obtained." 

6.  Ridgewood. — A  Decarie  incinerator  for  Queens  Borough,  New 
York  City,  was  built  at  Ridgewood  and  put  in  operation  in  April,  1916. 
There  are  two  50-ton  units,  which  may  be  operated  separately  or 
together.  The  furnaces  are  housed  in  a  brick  building  having  rein- 
forced concrete  fioors  and  a  roof  of  Spanish  tiles.  The  chimney  is  of 
radial  brick  construction,  and  is  6  ft.  in  diameter  and  150  ft.  high. 

A  special  feature  of  the  plant  is  the  absence  of  any  storage  bins. 
All  material  to  be  burned  is  dumped  on  the  upper  floor,  and  passes 
to  the  furnaces  through  hopper  openings.  Each  unit  is  capable  of 
holding  16  cu.  yd.  of  garbage  and  rubbish  at  one  time,  without  tend- 
ing in  any  way  to  smother  the  fires.  This  is  made  possible  by  the 
basket-grate  construction,  a  marked  feature  of  the  Decarie  design. 

Each  unit  has  its  gas-combustion  chamber,  pre-heater,  and  both 
induced-  and  forced-draft  fans.  The  fans  for  the  induced-draft  are 
No.  8  Sirocco,  and  those  for  the  forced  draft  are  No.  110  Special,  both 
made  by  the  American  Blower  Company.  All  fans  are  driven  by 
steam  engines,  the  steam  being  generated  in  the  water  jackets  of  the 
furnaces  by  the  burning  refuse. 

All  materials  were  to  be  consumed  to  a  mineral  ash  practically 
free  from  organic  matter,  and  the  plant  in  its  operation  was  to  cause 
no  nuisance  through  the  escape  of  obnoxious  odors,  gases,  or  dust 
from  either  the  building  or  the  stack.  The  results  of  the  official 
test  are  shown  in  Table  122  (under  Tests). 

In  the  test,  the  plant  exceeded  its  rated  capacity  by  from  48  to 
56%  with  units  operating  separately,  and  by  38.5%  when  both  units 


412    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

were  working,  burning  as  much  as  72.4  lb.  of  refuse  per  square  foot  of 
grate  area  per  hour,  without  any  fuel  or  domestic  ashes  to  help  main- 
tain the  temperature. 

Analyses  of  the  gases  when  leaving  the  stack  showed  an  average 
of  about  6  to  8%  of  carbon  dioxide,  an  excess  of  free  oxygen  of  about 
16%  (due,  of  course,  to  the  forced  draft),  together  with  a  trace  of 
sulphur  dioxide.  There  was  no  carbon  monoxide  or  hydrogen  sul- 
phide present.     There  was  no  dark  smoke. 

The  average  temperatures  in  the  gas-combustion  chambers  show 
that  this  plant  occupies  a  position  between  the  high-temperature  and 
the  slow-burning  low-temperature  types.  The  temperature  in  the 
furnace  proper  was  high,  and  the  tin  cans,  bottles,  crockery,  etc., 
were  fused  into  a  vitreous  clinker.  The  hot  forced  draft  was  essen- 
tial in  obtaining  these  results,  and  saved  the  addition  of  fuel  which 
otherwise  would  have  been  necessary.  The  plant  was  built  by 
Kelly  and  Kelly,  of  Long  Island  City,  for  $98,700,  and  the  machinery 
was  furnished  and  set  up  by  the  Decarie  Incinerator  Company,  of 
Minneapolis. 

7.  Topeka. — The  following  description  of  the  garbage  furnace  at 
Topeka  was  prepared  by  its  designer,  Mr.  S.  R.  Lewis.  It  should 
be  classed  as  a  low-temperature  furnace. 

"  The  garbage  and  refuse  furnace  at  Topeka  was  built  in  1909.  It  is  the 
first  plant  of  the  Lewis  type. 

"  There  are  two  furnaces,  back  to  back,  each  having  three  grate  units. 
The  furnaces  are  heavily  braced  with  vertical  pairs  of  6-in.  1-beanas  and  hori- 
zontal channels  opposite  the  skewbacks  of  all  arches.  In  addition,  all  the 
walls  are  of  9  in.  of  fire-brick  backed  with  9  in.  of  common  brick,  and  are 
sheathed  in  an  air-tight  steel  casing  to  prevent  air  infiltration. 

"  Each  grate  unit  has  a  shaking  grate  and  a  hearth  sloping  at  45°,  the  area 
of  each  hearth  being  approximately  three  times  that  of  the  grate. 

"  The  garbage  and  refuse  (the  plant  is  not  intended  to  handle  ashes)  are 
dumped  directly  from  the  wagons  into  tight,  steel  bins,  from  the  second  floor 
level,  reached  by  an  inclined  driveway.  Considerable  material  is  brought  by 
merchants  of  the  city  in  their  own  conveyances.  Each  bin  holds  about  1| 
cu.  yd.  In  the  bottom  of  each  bin  is  a  sliding  piston  having  a  reciprocating 
motion,  and  about  ten  strokes  are  required  to  force  the  refuse  in  a  thin  sheet, 
through  the  automatic  fire  door,  at  the  furnace  end  of  each  bin,  into  the  fur- 
nace. 

"  The  refuse  falls  at  the  top  of  the  inclined  arched  hearth,  and,  without 
appreciable  hand  stoking,  slowly  roUs  or  slides  down  the  incline.  As  the 
inclined  arched  hearth  is  but  30  in.  from  the  parallel  reverberatory  arch  above 
it,  and  as  all  the  products  of  combustion  must  pass  through  this  space,  the 
incoming  material  is  warmed  and  to  a  large  extent  burned  before  it  reaches  the 
grate.  As  the  charging  doors  are  generally  closed  when  the  feeding  mechanism 
is  in  operation,  and  in  any  event  the  door  to  the  furnace  from  the  storage  bin 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  413 

is  obstructed  by  refuse  until  the  bin  is  nearly  empty,  the  feeding  of  refuse  may 
be  said  to  be  carried  on  through  an  air  lock. 

"  The  three  furnaces  on  each  side  are  in  series,  so  that  the  heat  effect  is 
cumulative,  and,  on  this  account,  the  unit  nearest  the  chimney  has  proved 
to  have  considerably  more  burning  capacity  than  the  unit  farthest  away  from 
it.  As  no  ashes  are  burned,  there  is  little  clinker  as  a  result  of  the  combustion, 
and  the  shaking  grates  have  proved  satisfactory.  They  must  be  of  a  type, 
however,  not  easily  clogged  by  molten  glass  or  metal. 

"  The  furnace  is  operated  on  the  continuous,  rather  than  the  charge, 
principle.  The  refuse  is  constantly  entering,  without  undue  air  leakage,  and 
the  temperature,  boosted  by  added  fuel,  is  easily  held  constant. 

"  After  passing  over  the  third  hearth,  the  gases  dive  down  into  a  very  large 
combustion  chamber,  leaving  it  for  the  chimney  near  the  floor.  This  chamber 
has  16  times  the  cross-sectional  area  of  the  chimney,  and  has  been  found  quite 
satisfactory  as  a  dust  arrester. 

"  An  eight-hour  test  run,  with  a  caUbrated  electric  pyrometer  in  the  com- 
bustion chamber,  16  ft.  beyond  the  last  grate  unit,  showed  an  average  temper- 
ature of  1350°.  It  was  necessary  to  burn  about  120  lb.  of  coal  per  ton  of  mixed 
refuse,  to  maintain  this  temperatiu-e.  With  wet  garbage  exclusively,  it  has 
been  found  necessary  to  burn  as  much  as  225  lb.  of  coal  per  ton  of  garbage  to 
maintain  1200°  Fahr.  in  the  combustion  chamber. 

"  To  show  the  importance  of  the  air  lock  and  continuous  slow-feeding, 
repeated  tests  have  been  made,  using  the  charging  principle  common  to 
furnaces  of  older  design,  through  emergency  direct  hoppers,  which  are  always 
provided.  Instead  of  a  constant  temperature  of  around  1400  ,  the  combus- 
tion chamber  pyrometer  showed  an  immediate  drop  to  900°  or  lower  when  the 
hopper  was  opened,  and  a  slow  recovery  while  the  charge  of  cold,  wet  material 
was  absorbing  heat  from  the  furnace  walls  and  from  the  fire. 

"  The  increase  in  the  life  of  the  furnace  over  older  types  is  notable.  After 
four  years'  run,  there  was  no  appreciable  depreciation,  except  around  the 
doors,  and  an  expenditure  of  a  trifling  sum  covered  the  repairs  needed.  The 
sudden  and  wide  variations  in  temperature,  inevitable  when  charging  through 
open  hoppers,  as  done  in  a  chimney-draft  furnace,  are  eliminated.  The 
hearth,  with  its  steep  slope,  heated  on  one  side  only,  and  built  of  brick  rather 
than  blocks,  bids  fair  to  last  as  long  as  the  furnace. 

"  The  Topeka  plant  is  in  a  park,  near  the  business  center  of  the  city,  and 
is  housed  in  a  substantial  brick  building.  The  plant  is  rated  to  burn  6000  lb. 
of  refuse  per  hour." 

This  plant  has  been  closed. 

8.  Minneapolis. — The  garbage  and  some  of  the  refuse  of  Minne- 
apolis are  burned  in  a  garbage  furnace  built  by  the  Decarie  Incinerator 
Company.  The  furnace  is  designed  to  burn  garbage  and  rubbish, 
with  the  addition  of  coal  when  required,  but  is  not  suitable  for  burn- 
ing aslies  in  large  quantities.  The  plant  stands  on  a  large  open  piece  of 
ground,  and  has  been  operated  with  fair  success  under  the  super- 
vision of  Dr.  Hall,  Superintendent  of  the  Health  Department. 


414     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

9.  Miami. — This  rapidly  growing  city  has  a  plant  burning  garbage 
and  rubbish.  However,  it  is  not  of  sufficient  capacity  for  the  needs  of 
the  city,  and  has  to  be  operated  at  a  very  high  rate  of  combustion, 
which  compels  the  use  of  about  1|  cords  of  wood  per  day,  in  addition 
to  the  rubbish.  Under  these  conditions,  the  cost  of  operation  per  ton 
is  greater  than  it  would  be  if  the  capacity  were  greater. 

Under  the  supervision  of  Mr.  C.  W.  Murray,  the  City  Engineer, 
the  operation  has  been  conducted  with  special  intelligence  and  care, 
so  that,  even  under  unfavorable  conditions,  there  have  been  no  com- 
plaints of  objectionable  odors.  It  is  intended  soon  to  enlarge  the 
plant,  the  extensions  being  built  on  improved  designs. 

The  cost  has  been : 

1^  cords  of  wood  at $7.00  $10.50 

20  laborers  at 3.00  60.00 

1  foreman  at 5.00  5.00 


$75.00 
Cost  per  ton,  $1.68. 

10.  Nye  Incinerator. — This  is  one  of  the  latest  furnaces  offered 
for  burning  garbage  and  rubbish  without  ashes.  It  is  comparatively 
simple  and  operates  somewhat  on  the  Dutch  oven  principle.  It  is 
practically  square,  and  is  arranged  to  receive  separately  dry  and  wet 
refuse  in  a  single  large  compartment.  The  refuse  is  dumped  through 
two  openings  at  the  top  and  is  burned  on  a  concrete  floor.  One 
opening  receives  the  dry  material,  such  as  rubbish  or  trash,  which 
drops  through  a  chute  immediately  to  the  grate;  the  other  receives 
the  wet  garbage,  including  watermelon  rinds,  night-soil,  and  small 
dead  animals.  This  latter  material  drops  on  a  shallow  pan  where  its 
surplus  moisture  is  evaporated.  The  dried  material  is  finally  burned 
with  the  rubbish  into  which  it  has  been  raked. 

The  furnace  is  lined  with  fire-brick  to  retain  the  heat  and  reflect 
it  on  the  refuse.  To  conserve  the  heat,  there  is  an  automatic  arrange- 
ment for  pre-heating  the  air  supplied  to  the  ashpit  under  the  grate. 
This  pre-heating  is  accomplished  by  passing  fresh  air  through  flues 
below  the  concrete  floor  and  then  behind  the  side-walls  of  the  furnace. 
A  combustion  chamber  is  provided  where  the  gases  from  the  different 
parts  of  the  furnace  floor  are  united  and  burned,  and  where  a  tempera- 
ture of  1500°  has  been  reached.  From  this  chamber  the  gases  are 
brought  back  through  flues  under  the  wet  garbage  pan  before  they 
escape  through  the  stack. 

Care  must  be  taken  to  have  each  kind  of  refuse  uniformly  mixed 
before  it  is  dumped  into  the  openings,  as  otherwise  great  fluctuations 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  415 

in  temperature  will  result,  the  lower  temperatures  being  insufficient 
for  thorough  combustion,  and  resulting  in  odors  of  the  fumes  and  smoke 
escaping  from  the  stack. 

No  attempt  has  been  made  to  utilize  the  heat  for  generating  steam 
at  these  furnaces.  It  is  said  that,  ordinarily,  no  extra  commercial 
fuel  is  used,  as  the  heat  of  the  burning  rubbish  is  sufficient  to  drive 
the  moistu'-e  from  the  wet  garbage.  But  in  some  of  the  plants  the 
the  combustion  produces  insufficient  heat  for  the  odorless  incineration 
of  the  whole. 

As  such  incinerators  are  not  usually  operated  continuously,  it  is 
necessary  to  start  the  fires  frequently.  For  this  purpose,  either 
selected  rubbish  which,  when  burned,  will  not  produce  offensive  odors 
must  be  used,  or  specially  supplied  fuel.    . 

Incinerators  of  this  type  are  in  operation  in  Jacksonville,  Fla., 
Chattanooga,  Tenn.,  Brunswick,  Ga.,  Anniston,  Ala.,  Norfolk,  Va., 
Pelham  Bay  Naval  Base,  N.  Y.,  and  other  places. 

11.  U.  S.  Army  Cantonments. — Incinerators  of  various  sizes  and 
types,  ranging  from  small  hospital  or  kitchentypes  to  units  having  rated 
capacities  of  50  tons  per  twenty-four  hours,  were  built  at  various 
Army  posts  and  Cantonments.  Their  purpose  was  to  provide  a  place 
for  the  complete  and  sanitary  disposal  by  incineration  of  any  waste 
matter  containing  disease  germs,  together  with  rubbish  and  such  por- 
tions of  the  garbage  and  manure  as  could  not  be  disposed  of  by  sale. 

These  incinerators  were  intended  to  have  sufficient  capacity  to 
dispose  of  the  entire  output  of  garbage  and  refuse  produced  each  day, 
which  was  estimated  at  from  1.5  to  2.0  lb.  per  man  per  twenty-four 
hours. 

The  larger  incinerators  consisted  of  a  suitable  transfer  platform 
for  receiving  the  cans  from  the  various  parts  of  the  camp,  the  can- 
washing  equipment,  and  the  incinerator  proper,  with  appropriate 
fire-proof  buildings  for  the  permanent  camps.  The  incinerators  were 
built  of  different  designs,  in  accordance  with  the  various  contractors' 
proposals,  but  were  generally  of  the  garbage  furnace  type,  comprising 
one  or  more  grates  set  in  brickwork  and  encased  entirely  in  reinforced 
concrete.  A  grate  for  burning  coal  or  other  additional  fuel,  and  a 
large  opening  for  dead  animals  were  also  included. 

At  most  of  the  Army  Cantonments  the  garbage  proper  was  sold 
to  contractors  for  hog  feeding,  and  the  incinerators  were  used  for 
rubbish  burning. 

12.  Montreal. — A  British  refuse  incinerator,  or  destructor,  was 
built  in  Montreal  in  1894.  Mr.  Charles  Thackeray  erected  a  plant 
which  was  a  slight  modification  of  the  Fryer  design,  placing  the  cells 
back  to  back,  and  with  a  common  charging  platform  on  top.     The 


416    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

fire  grates  are  inclined  and  rocking  in  order  to  move  the  refuse  forward. 
About  1912  it  was  determined  to  separate  most  of  the  ashes  from 
the  rest  of  the  refuse  and  dump  them  separately  at  near-by  points. 
The  reason  given  was  the  insufficient  size  of  the  incinerator.  Sifting 
through  a  fine-mesh  screen  had  been  tried,  in  order  to  reduce  the 
quantity,  but  it  was  soon  found  that  this  was  too  expensive  to  make 
it  worth  while,  and  that  in  damp  weather  the  siftings  became  foul. 
In  summer  120  tons  and  in  winter  70  tons  were  incinerated  per  day. 

13.  Westmount. — The  first  successful  British  refuse  incinerator, 
or  destructor,  in  America,  was  erected  at  Westmount,  in  1906,  and  was 
of  the  "  Meldrum  top-feed  "  type.  It  consisted  of  three  grates,  having 
a  total  area  of  75  sq.  ft.,  a  combustion  chamber,  a  Babcock  and  Wilcox 
water-tube  boiler  having  2197  sq.  ft.  of  heating  surface,  and  a  regen- 
erator. The  steam  is  fully  utilized,  in  connection  with  the  combined 
electric  plant,  for  operating  the  works  and  illuminating  the  town. 

The  buildings  are  of  brick,  and  the  chimney,  of  the  Custodis  type, 
is  150  ft.  high.  The  plant  is  in  a  central  location,  and  has  a  very  fav- 
orable site,  as  the  refuse  is  delivered  to  the  storage  hoppers  at  an 
elevation  which  permits  it  to  pass  through  the  furnaces  to  the  clinker- 
ing  floor  by  gravity.     See  Fig.  101. 

Forced  draft  is  provided  by  steam-jet  blowers,  and  the  figures  of 
the  official  test  show  that  very  good  results  have  been  obtained. 

In  March,  1910,  an  extension  or  duplicate  plant  was  added,  increas- 
ing the  capacity  by  50  tons  per  twenty-four  hours.  This  is  of  the 
Heenan  top-feed  type,  and  consists  of  three  grates  (75  sq.  ft.),  a  com- 
bustion chamber,  a  Babcock  and  Wilcox  water-tube  boiler  having  a 
heating  surface  of  2197  sq.  ft.,  a  superheater,  and  a  regenerator.  The 
forced  draft  is  obtained  with  a  centrifugal  fan,  66  in.  in  diameter, 
coupled  directly  to  an  enclosed,  vertical,  high-speed  engine. 

The  following  guaranties  were  given: 

1.  That  the  plant  shall  be  capable  of  burning,  to  a  hard  innocuous 
clinker,  50  tons  of  refuse  per  day  of  twenty-four  hours,  or  20  tons  in 
ten  hours. 

2.  That  the  combustion  of  the  refuse  shall  be  complete,  and  free 
from  nuisance,  and  that  no  odors  or  noxious  gases  shall  be  emitted 
from  the  chimney. 

3.  That  the  temperature  in  the  combustion  chamber,  in  normal 
working,  with  refuse  of  average  quality,  shall  not  fall  below  1500° 
Fahr.,  and  that  the  average  temperature  shall  be  from  1700  to  1800° 
Fahr. 

4.  That,  with  refuse  of  average  quality,  an  evaporation  of  IJ  lb. 
of  water  per  pound  of  refuse,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.,  shall  be 
obtained. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


Fig.  101. — Westmount  Incinerator  and  Electric  Light  Plant. 


1 
1 

r-- 

. 

~ 

600 
550 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 
0 

0) 

o 

2 

900 
825 

750 

675 

600 

525 

cu 
450     X 

cii 

375 

300 

255 

150 

75 
0 

1000 
916 

833 

750 

666 

583 

500     ^^ 

417 

333 

250 

167 

83 
0 

600 
550 

500 

450 

400 

350    ^• 

300    5 

250    M 

200 

150 

100 

50 
0 

B.  H.  P.=Kw..x  f  X  f  =Knr.  Xl.  5 

\ 

I.H.P=Kw.x-|-x^x  i2=Kw.xl.(, 

r 

\ 

\ 

Boiler  H.P.-Kw.xl.66x  ||- 

\ 

ETaporation  —   Kw  v  1   ^V 

\ 

SI 

^ 

i/. 

\ 
\ 

^ 

.ti 

P 

\ 

Ci 

' 

\ 

\ 

J 

\ 

?/■ 

►^j 

1. 

1 

\ 

"■ 

w 

►-1 

\ 

— 

1 

1 

,  1 

i 

SI 

'( 

1 

dl 

\ 

1 

1 

"( 

I 
1 

1 

i! 

\ 

1 

Av 

ea 

ge 

^nc 

anc 

esc 

en( 

1 

^Co, 

iBU 

np 

icui 

\ 

/ 

r 

^ 

•*>* 

s^ 

\ 

J. 

1 

1 

■"" 

~- 

— 1 

/ 

1 

1 

Irs 

Arc 

CoJisi 

mptio 

1 

150 

Lit 

hts 

1 

/ 

'in 

?3&j(3es 

cent 

i 

\ 

__ 

^ 

__ 

^ 

_L 

_ 

fc 

1^ 

Arr.  1 

.nsRPR 

^Z 

=LA 

9    10U12123     456789    10  U121.  234     5 
A.M.        Noon  p  M,  M'nt.        A.M. 

Time  of  Day 


F);g.  102. — Daily  Output  Curves,  Westmount  Incinerator. 


418     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  official  tests  proved  that  the  guaranties  were  fully  met,  and  the 
incinerator  has  remained  in  successful  and  economical  operation. 

The  clinker  and  ashes  are  taken  away,  at  no  cost  to  the  city,  and 
utilized  for  roads,  concrete  basement  floors,  and  for  making  concrete 
building  blocks. 

Fig.  102  gives  the  daily  output  curves  recorded  by  Messrs.  Ross 
and  Holgate,  engineers,  in  1905.  For  each  hour  from  afternoon  until 
morning  there  are  given  curves  for  150  arc  lights,  the  maximum  (winter) 
and  the  minimum  (summer)  incandescent  lights.  The  deficiency  of 
power  obtained  from  the  incinerator,  when  it  occurs,  is  supplied  from 
coal-fired  boilers.  The  total  capital  account  of  the  incinerator  plant 
is  $106,061.76. 

During  the  fiscal  year  1918-19  there  were  consumed  8032  tons 
of  garbage  and  rubbish  and  10,627  tons  of  ashes.  From  this  consump- 
tion a  credit  of  $4872.46  was  given  for  heat  value  on  the  year's  cost  of 
operating  the  plant. 

The  following  statement  is  taken  from  the  annual  report  of  Mr, 
Geo.  W.  Thompson,  General  Manager,  for  the  year  ending  October 
31,  1919. 

Revenue  and  Expenditure  at  the  Refuse  Incinerator  at  WESTMOtrNT, 

Que. 

For  12  months  ending  October  31,  1919. 

Revenue 

Fuel  value  of  refuse  consumed  and  charged  to 

electric  light  operations $4,872 .  46 

Interest  earned 981 .  33 

$  5,853.79 
Health  Department,  for  destruction  of  refuse 19,464 .  52 

$25,318.31 

Expenditure 

Operating  expenses $14,998 .  34 

Operating  ash  dump i  ,380 .  21 

$16,378.55 

Interest  on  debentures $4323 .  59 

Sinking  fund  for  redemption  of  bonds . . .     1060 .  62 

Loss  on  sale  of  bonds 53 .  78 

$5,437.99 

Reserve  for  depreciation 3,501 .  77 

$25,318.31 

As  19,707  tons  of  refuse  were  collected,  the  actual  cost  of  incinerating  one 

ton  was  $1.28. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  419 

14.  Vancouver. — A  Heenan  and  Froude  incinerator  of  40  tons 
capacity  was  built  in  Vancouver  (population,  60,000)  in  1907.  The 
refuse  burned  contained '46%  garbage  and  market  waste,  40%  ashes, 
and  12%  trade  refuse.  It  has  one  unit  of  three  cells,  combustion 
chamber,  fan  draft,  and  pre-heated  air,  a  65-h.p.  Babcock  and  Wilcox 
boiler,  a  chimney  120  ft.  high,  back  feed,  and  clinkering  from  the 
front.  The  power  is  used  for  operating  and  lighting  the  works,  and 
there  are  also  some  lights  supplied  outside. 

The  refuse  burned  per  man-hour  was  1.04  tons  (6  men  eight  hours 
each). 

The  clinker  was  one-third  of  the  refuse  delivered,  hard  and  well 
burned.  The  temperature  in  the  combustion  chamber  was  from 
1500  to  2000°  Fahr.  The  temperature  of  the  forced  draft  was  from 
511  to  600°  Fahr.  The  evaporation  reported  was  0.52  lb.  of  water 
per  pound  of  refuse.     No  nuisance  was  caused  about  the  plant. 

15.  Toronto. — The  incinerator  at  Toronto  was  built  in  1912  under 
the  supervision  of  I.  S.  Osborn.  It  has  a  guaranteed  capacity  of  180 
tons  per  day  of  twenty-four  hours,  there  being  three  furnaces  in  opera- 
tion. In  the  official  capacity  test  the  results  exceeded  the  guaranty 
by  33%.  The  plant  is  now  operated  with  one  shift  daily,  and  the 
capacity  of  the  three  furnaces  is  from  600  to  675  tons  per  week  of 
5f  days. 

The  operating  expenses  have  been  reduced  recently,  due  principally 
to  changes  in  the  furnace  and  container  doors,  which  were  first  oper- 
ated by  water  pressure  and  are  now  operated  by  compressed  air. 
Three  extensions  of  the  tipping  floor  have  recently  been  built,  and 
have  also  caused  a  material  reduction  in  the  cost  of  operation. 

16.  Watford,  England.— Goodrich  states  *  that  the  Meldrum 
destructor  at  Watford — about  17  miles  north  of  London — combined 
with  the  sewage  pumping  plant,  is  one  of  the  most  successful  in  Great 
Britain.  (See  Fig.  103.)  The  furnace  is  a  front-feed  regenerative 
destructor,  and  consumes  about  27  tons  of  refuse  daily,  working  con- 
tinuously for  about  150  hours  per  week.  Steam,  at  a  pressure  of 
120  lb.  per  square  inch,  is  supplied  to  Worthington  pumps  and  air 
compressor  engines.  About  1,000,000  gal.  of  sewage  are  pumped  per 
twenty-four  hours  to  a  height  of  8.4  ft.,  and  an  additional  500,000  gal. 
are  pumped  by  the  air  compressors  and  ejector  plant. 

The  destructor  was  started  on  March  31,  1904,  and  the  following 
figures,  t  covering  the  first  two  years  of  working,  Goodrich  states, 
"  are  perhaps  without  parallel  among  combined  works  of  the  kind:" 

*  In  "  The  Collection  and  Disposal  of  Municipal  Waste,"  by  W.  F.  Morse, 
t  For  the  convenience  of  American  readers,  the  English  figures  have  been  converted  into 
American,  taking  the  English  pound  sterling  as  equal  to  f4.86|. 


420         COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


For  year  ending: 

March  31,  1904.     Before  erection  of  destructor $4592.33 

March  31,  1905.     After  erection  of  destructor. .  .  .- 774.87 

March  31,  1906.     After  erection  of  destructor 1146.73 

First  year's  working  of  destructor,  saving  in  coal  bill 3815 .02 

Add  revenue  from  sale  of  clinker 493 .  66 

Add  revenue  from  sale  of  old  tins 39 .  50 

Second  year's  working  of  destructor,  saving  in  coal  bill 3445 .  60 

Add  revenue  from  sale  of  clinker  and  residuals 984.65 

Total  saving  for  two  years $8778 .43 

Total  cost  of  repairs  and  maintenance 82 .  49 


f-^  PaTJag 


i^^^^^sa 


SECTION  C-D 


Fig.   103. — Plan  and  Sections  of  Meldrum  Destructor,  Watford,  England. 
(From  "  The  Collection  and  Disposal  of  Municipal  Waste,"  by  W.  F.  Morse.) 

The  general  arrangement  of  the  plant  is  shown  in  Fig.  103.  The 
hot  gases,  after  passing  the  boiler,  are  utilized  for  heating  the  air  for 
combustion  in  a  Meldrum  regenerator,  and  also  for  heating  the  boiler 
feed-water  in  a  Green's  economizer,  the  temperatures  being  about 
300  and  250°  Fahr.,  respectively,  the  heating  surfaces  of  the  boiler 
regenerator  and  economizer  reducing  the  temperature  of  the  gases 
from  an  average  of  1800°  Fahr.,  in  the  combustion  chamber  before 
the  boiler,  to  about  400°  Fahr.  at  the  chimney  base. 

The  steam-pressure  recorder  diagrams  show  a  very  steady  pressure 
throughout  the  twenty-four  hours. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


421 


17.  St.  Albans,  England. — The  Heenan  destructor  at  St.  Albans 
is  an  excellent  example  of  a  well-designed  plant  of  the  front-feed  type. 
There  are  two  3-grate  units  with  combustion  chambers,  and  two 
Babcock  and  Wilcox  boilers,  having  a  heating  surface  of  about  2000 
sq.  ft.,  and  fitted  with  Foster  superheaters. 


^t^=._j._._.M.iyMy^ 


Temporaty  £nd 


Temporal?  £&d 

Fig.  104. — Plan  and  Section  of  St.  Albans  Destructor. 

(From  "  Modern  Destructor  Practice,"  by  W.  F.  Goodrich.) 

The  fan  for  the  forced  draft  may  be  driven  by  the  usual  high-speed 
engine  or  by  a  motor  of  the  variable-speed  type,  with  shunt  regulator. 
Regenerators  heat  the  air  for  combustion.  The  chimney  is  130  ft. 
high,  and  has  an  internal  diameter  of  b\  ft.  at  the  top. 

Fig.  104  shows  a  plan  and  section  of  the  plant,  from  which  it  is 
seen  that  the  building  is  arranged  in  three  main  bays.    The  rear  bay 


422    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

contains  the  destructor,  boilers,  and  pumping  plant;  the  generating 
sets,  switchboard,  and  fitters'  shop  are  in  the  center;  and  the  front  bay 
houses  the  battery-room,  test-room,  store-room,  offices,  etc.  The 
whole  plant  is  arranged  so  that  its  capacity  may  be  doubled  at  any 
time  without  building  another  chimney. 

18.  Coventry,  England, — The  Heenan  destructor  at  Coventry 
consists  of  three  back-feed,  hand-fired  and  clinkered  units,  each 
complete  and  independent.  Each  unit  comprises  a  continuous  fur- 
nace divided  into  three  sections  or  grates  by  division  walls  in  the 
ashpit.  The  products  of  combustion  pass  from  the  furnace  into  the 
combustion  chamber,  the  functions  of  which  are  to  permit  a  deposit 
of  the  dust  carried  from  the  furnace,  and  to  ensure  the  complete 
diffusion  and  mixing  of  the  gases  before  they  come  into  contact  with 
the  boiler.  During  four  separate  tests,  each  extending  over  four 
days,  the  average  temperatures  varied  from  1840  to  2587°  Fahr. 

The  gases  from  the  combustion  chamber  pass  through  a  Babcock 
and  Wilcox  water-tube  boiler,  having  1966  sq.  ft.  of  heating  surface, 
and  constructed  for  a  regular  working  pressure  of  200  lb.  per  square 
inch.  Each  boiler  has  a  Foster  standard  superheater,  which  delivers 
the  steam  at  the  generating  station  main,  300  ft.  distant,  with  a 
superheat  of  100°  Fahr. 

An  air  heater,  or  regenerator,  is  placed  in  the  path  of  the  gases 
after  these  have  passed  through  the  boiler,  the  object  of  which  is  to 
raise  the  temperature  of  the  air,  required  for  supporting  combustion, 
by  passing  it  over  the  exterior  of  the  tubes  of  the  heater  while  the  hot 
gases  pass  through  them.  In  this  way  the  temperature  of  the  air 
extracted  from  the  destructor  house,  which  is  normally  about  68° 
Fahr.,  is  raised  to  an  average  of  about  300°  Fahr.,  and  this,  being 
delivered  at  the  under  side  of  the  furnace  bars,  accelerates  the  igni- 
tion of  freshly  charged  material  and  raises  the  furnace  temperatures. 

From  the  air  heater  the  gases  pass  through  a  Green's  economizer 
and  thence  to  the  chimney.  Each  economizer  consists  of  96  pipes, 
with  suitable  scraper  gear.  Thus  each  destructor  unit  is  complete  and 
independent,  and  is  equipped  with  all  the  steam  raising  accessories 
that  make  a  plant  efficient. 

The  furnaces,  combustion  chambers,  boiler  settings,  and  flues 
are  lined  with  Stourbridge  fire-bricks,  and  the  exterior  walls  are  faced 
with  salt-glazed  bricks. 

The  air  for  the  forced  draft  is  extracted  from  the  interior  of  the 
destructor  house  by  an  air  duct  placed  in  the  apex  of  the  roof,  extend- 
ing the  whole  length  of  the  building.  Openings  in  this  duct  admit  the 
air  from  the  destructor  house,  and  it  is  drawn  through  the  ducts 
by  centrifugal  fans.     This  has  the  advantage  of  removing  effectively 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  423 

all  foul  air  from  the  main  building  and  hoppers,  the  air  being  deliv- 
ered to  the  ashpits  at  a  pressure  of  about  2  in.  of  water  column. 
There  is  absolute  control  of  this  air  supply,  and  it  can  be  regulated  in 
accordance  with  the  requirements  of  each  furnace,  or  it  can  be  cut 
off  entirely  from  any  grate  section  during  the  clinkering  operation. 

The  refuse,  on  arrival  at  the  plant,  is  taken  up  an  inclined  roadway, 
and  is  tipped  into  the  receiving  hopper.  The  storage  capacity  is  suffi- 
cient for  one  day's  supply,  and,  as  the  Coventry  refuse  when  fresh  is 
not  objectionable,  the  arrangement  has  fulfilled  every  requirement. 

From  the  hopper  the  refuse  falls  to  the  level  of  the  charging  sill, 
and  thence  is  shovel-fed  into  the  furnace.  The  firing  d'^ors  are  2  ft. 
6  in.  above  the  floor  level,  so  that  the  labor  of  feeding  is  reduced  to  a 
minimum  for  a  hand-fired  plant. 

Owing  to  the  relative  levels  of  the  destructor  site  and  certain 
neighboring  residential  areas,  it  was  considered  desirable  to  erect  a 
chimney  shaft  180  ft.  high,  so  as  to  avoid  the  possibility  of  creating 
any  nuisance.  The  products  of  combustion  issuing  from  this  chimney 
are,  at  almost  all  times,  scarcely  visible. 

The  whole  plant  is  contained  within  the  main  building,  which  is  a 
plain  brick  structure  with  glass  and  slate  roof.  The  whole  building  is 
of  fire-resisting  materials.  A  mess  room,  bath  room,  and  dressing 
rooms  are  provided  for  the  workmen.  A  portion  of  the  main  building 
is  enclosed  to  accommodate  the  fans,  engines,  boiler  feed  pumps,  etc., 
and  the  clinker  utilization  machinery  is  housed  in  another  section. 
The  whole  is  lighted  by  electricity. 

Fig.  105  shows  the  refuse  destructor  plant  at  Coventry,  and  Fig. 
106  is  a  view  of  the  clinkering  floor.  The  grinding  mill  and  flag  press 
are  shown  in  Fig.  107. 

Fig.  108  is  a  set  of  three  diagrams*  showing  the  seasonal  variation 
in  the  combustible  content  of  the  refuse  of  Coventry,  and  is  based  on  a 
three  years'  average  of  the  records  of  the  destructor. 

The  system  of  recording  all  the  conditions  and  work  done  at  this 
plant  was  very  complete.  Every  load  of  refuse  was  weighed.  The 
water  evaporated  is  drawn  from  the  hot  well  and  delivered  to  a  2000- 
gal.  supply  tank  over  the  pump  room.  The  water  drawn  from  the 
tank  is  metered,  the  meter  is  read  every  fifteen  minutes,  and  the  results 
are  compared,  with  the  object  of  ensuring  a  constant  evaporation 
rate.  The  steam  pressure  is  taken  continuously  on  a  Bristol  self- 
recording  gauge.  The  residue  from  the  furnaces  is  utilized  in  various 
ways.  All  information,  with  temperature  readings,  is  entered  on  the 
daily  log. 

*  From  a  paper,  by  Mr.  J.  Eric  Swindlehurst,  entitled  "  The  Construction  and 
Working    of  a  Modern   Refuse  Destructor." 


424     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

In  order  to  «how  the  results  concisely,  the  diagrams  are  based  on 
an  average  of  three  years'  work.  The  first  chart  on  the  diagram 
shows  the  number  of  tons  of  refuse  burnt  during  each  month.  The 
monthly    quantities  vary  considerably. 

The  second  chart  shows  that  the  calorific  value  of  the  refuse  also 
varies  in  marked  degree  owing  to  seasonal  and  other  influences. 

The  evaporative  rate  is  shown  on  the  third  chart  of  the  diagram. 
In  this  the  average  evaporation  rate  is  reduced  to  the  usual  standard 


'WBWHi|||j||Mj|l|E^?^xr^TlBl^BiiBi 


I'm.  105. — View  of  Refuse  Destructor,  Coventry,  England. 


of  the  equivalent  evaporation,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.,  per  pound  of 
combustible.  This  chart  shows  that  the  average  evaporation  (for 
three  years,  as  before)  has  equaled  2.12  lb.  of  water  per  pound  of 
refuse   burned. 

19.  Greenock,  Scotland. — The  destructor  at  Greenock,  a  plan  of 
which  is  shown  in  Fig.  82,  is  of  the  Horsfall,  "  tub-fed  "  type,  with 
six  cells.  Steam  is  generated  in  three  boilers,  of  the  Babcock  and  Wil- 
cox marine  type,  there  being  one  boiler  for  each  pair  of  cells.  The 
boilers  work  at  a  pressure  of  200  lb.  per  square  inch,  and  have  super- 
heaters, the  final  heat  of  the  steam  after  leaving  the  superheaters 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


425 


Fig.  106. — Clinkering  Floor  of  Destructor,  Coventry,  England. 


Fig.  107. — Grinding  Mm  and  Flag  Press  of  Destructor,  Coventry,  England. 


426     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

being  550°  Fahr.     The  boiler  feed-water  is  heated  by  a  large  econ- 
omizer. 

The  steam  is  fully  utilized  in  the  generating  station  with  which 
the  destructor  is  combined.  The  refuse  is  a  mixture  of  garbage, 
ashes,  rubbish,  and  manure,  and  is  of  average  quality.  About  57 
tons  are  burned  daily. 


Chart  No.l    Quantity  of  Refuse  Burned 
Jaa.  Feb.     Mar.  Apr.    May  June    July   Aug.  Sept.  Oct.  Nov.    Dec. 


2000 
1750 
1500 
1250  - 
1000 


Ave 

age  p 

:rMo 

ith  = 

1089  : 

'ous 

__-^- 

-■"— 



==— 





Chart  No.2    Average  Burning  Rate 
Per  Hour  Per  Square  Foot  of  Grate  Area 


Ave 

age  p 

if  Mo 

itli  = 

>6.1  L 

J 









Proportionate  Quantity 
of  Refuse  in  Each  Montb 
The  Monthly  Average 
for  the  Year  being  100 
Then.* 


January 

= 

117.5 

February 

= 

106.5 

March 

= 

112.2 

April 

= 

105.6 

May 

= 

104.3 

June 

= 

83.3 

July 

= 

87.7 

August 

= 

80.9 

September 

= 

85.3 

October 

= 

99.3 

November 

= 

107.4 

December 

= 

110 .0 

Chart  No.3    Average  Evaporation 

Per  Pound  of  Refuse  Burned  Per  Month 

Equivalent  Evaporatioa.  from    and  at  212  Fahr. 


3.0 
2.5 

A  vera 

;e  per 

Mont 

h  =2 

12  Lb 

2.0 

1.5 

Jan.    Feb.   Mar.   Apr.  May  June   July    Aug.   Sept.  Oct,  Nov.    Dee, 

Fig.  108. — Results  Obtained  at  Coventry,  Based  on  Average  of  Three  Years. 


This  destructor  is  mechanically  charged  (Figs.  80  and  81)  and, 
during  1909,  developed  an  average  of  67.2  kw.-hr.  per  ton  of  refuse 
burned.  At  this  plant  a  temperature  of  from  1300°  to  2160°  Fahr. 
is  given  as  typical  of  a  day's  run.  The  electric  power  generated 
netted  about  $8000  for  the  year,  and  the  chnker  brought  about  $300. 

20.  Hamburg,  Germany. — The  plant  was  designed  by  F.  Andreas 
Meyer,  City  Engineer,  and  is  the  largest  in  Europe.     It  has  thirty-six 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  427 

cells,  with  900  sq.  ft.  of  grate  surface,  and  serves  a  population  of  more 
than  300,000  persons.  It  can  incinerate  more  than  300  tons  of  mixed 
refuse  per  day.  The  furnaces  are  of  the  single-cell  type,  and  are 
charged  by  a  top-feed  device.  (See  also  under  C.  2.  Hamburg). 
The  single  charge  is  one  meter  deep,  and  is  burned  to  a  hard  clinker 
in  about  thirty  minutes,  with  a  forced  draft  of  about  7  in.  of  water 
pressure.  The  highest  temperature  is  ordinarily  1436°,  the  lowest, 
842°,  and  the  average,  1124°  Fahr.  A  special  elevated  dust  catcher  is 
provided  for  each  cell,  with  a  gravity  outlet  into  dumping  cars.  From 
40  to  45%  of  the  refuse  is  consumed,  and,  of  the  residue,  from  10  to 
12%  is  ashes  and  from  50  to  43%  is  clinker.  Clinkering  is  done  by 
hand  through  a  side  opening  in  each  cell. 

The  thirty-six  cells  are  in  six  groups,  placed  in  two  rows,  with 
the  cells  back  to  back.  They  are  all  top-fed.  A  laborer  pulls  the 
refuse  from  the  drjdng  hearth  to  the  grate  and  spreads  it  out  there 
in  thin  layers.  Every  1^  hours  the  clinkers  are  drawn  out  into  trucks 
and  taken  outside.  The  forced  draft  is  shut  off  when  feeding  or 
clinkering  is  done.  Every  twelve  hours  ashes  are  removed  from 
beneath  the  grate.  The  gases  pass  through  a  combustion  chamber 
and  main  flue,  which  is  cleared  of  dust  every  three  months.  Careful 
tests  were  made  with  steam-jet  blast  and  dry-air  blast,  with  the  result 
that  the  former  was  effective  in  greater  heat  production  only  when  the 
fire  was  at  white  heat.  As  it  is  frequently  not  so  hot,  the  steam  then 
had  a  relatively  cooling  effect  on  the  fire.  The  steam  blast,  therefore, 
was  abandoned,  and  the  more  economical  hot-air  draft  was  intro- 
duced at  a  pressure  of  1.4  in.  and  0.5  in.  of  vacuum  in  the  main  flue. 

The  average  steam  production  from  1  lb.  of  refuse  is  0.526  lb. 

The  boilers  generated  steam  at  90  lb.  pressure,  which  was  utilized 
to  produce  electricity  for  operating  the  cranes,  ventilators,  forced- 
draft  blowers,  cinder  crushers,  and  the  illumination  of  the  entire  plant. 
Also  storage  batteries  were  loaded  with  the  surplus  energy,  which  was 
about  200  h.p.  daily.  This  was  utilized  first  for  sewage  pumps,  and 
a  city  tugboat,  and  later  for  the  electric  trucks  collecting  the  refuse. 

In  1901  the  cost  of  incinerating  one  ton  of  refuse,  including  fixed 
charges  for  depreciation  and  interest,  was  1.046  marks,  or  about  25 
cents.  The  cost  of  collection  was  2.031  marks,  or  about  50  cents  per 
Ion. 

Dr.  Lenormand,  Municipal  Counselor  of  Le  Havre,  France,  in 
his  Report  on  the  Treatment  of  Municipal  Refuse  of  Le  Havre, 
("Rapport  sur  Traitement  des  Ordures  Menageres"),  1908,  in  speaking 
of  refuse  collection  and  disposal  in  Hamburg,  says: 

"Sans  doute,  nos  moeurs  fran9aises  s'accommoderaient  mal  d'une  semblable 
organisation,  d'allure  toute  militaire;    il  n'en  faut  pas  moins  convenir  que  la 


428     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

grande  ville  allemande  est  d'une  propriete  merveilleuse  et  qu'elle  ne  doit  pas 
etre  loin  de  det^nir  le  record  parmi  les  capitales  du  monde  en  tier." 

Figs.  109,  110,  and  111,  illustrate  this  incinerator. 

21.  Paris,  France. — For  centuries  Paris  has  been  bargeing  or 
carting  its  refuse  outside  of  the  city  for  dumping.  During  the  last 
century  several  efforts  were  made  to  pulverize  it  and  produce  manure. 
Sorting  was  also  tried,  and  finally,  in  1894,  a  trial  furnace  was  built 
at  Vitry  to  test  the  merits  of  incineration,  substantially  according  to 


'M^m 


Fig.  109. — View  of  Hamburg  Incinerator. 

the  Horsfall  system.  The  grate  was  2  meters  wide,  l\  meters  deep,  and 
inclined  23°.  The  drying  hearth  was  1.8  meters  long.  The  chimney 
was  1  meter  in  diameter  and  31  meters  high.  The  temperature  above 
the  fire  averaged  1030°  Fahr.  In  the  warm  season  the  residue 
weighed  about  32%  of  the  original  refuse,  and  measured  about  19% 
of  its  bulk.  In  cold  weather  these  figures  were,  respectively,  40% 
and  34%  (see  also  Chapter  I).  As  a  result  of  this  test,  incineration 
was  not  then  introduced. 

In  many  cities  of  France  it  was  thought  that  the  solution  of  the 
problem  should  be  a  combination  of  pulverizing  some  of  the  organic 
matter  and  incinerating  the  rest,  believing  that  the  refuse  had  suf- 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE 


429 


430    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


0 

P 

(D 

P 

7 

o 

■ 

1-i 

^N        ft^ 

^^ 

>    hrl 

(1.    fD 

- 

§' 

(I!       P 

(11 

^  w 

& 

CD 

i-j 

o- 

CD 

n' 

L 

w 

i- 

Q 


BQDII 

m  o  o  ta  N 

S  0  5  "  3 

?&S  tog 

33 

n 

g  'T!  to  ?:   p 

> 

3  a  p  '^  t- 

?l  1 

INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  431 

ficient  manurial  and  calorific  values.  Experience  in  Paris,  however, 
proved,  as  elsewhere,  that  the  manurial  value  is  small  and  that  it 
is  difficult  to  obtain  a  market  for  it  except  on  very  sandy  and  barren 
soil.     It  was  decided,  therefore,  to  repeat  a  trial  for  incineration. 

In  February,  1909,  and  under  favorable  conditions,  another  test 
was  made  at  Vitry  by  the  Association  Parisienne  de  Propri^taires  des 
Appareils  L  Vapeur.  About  12,000  lb.  of  refuse  were  burned  in  seven 
hours  and  fifty  minutes.  The  temperature  maintained  was  1560°  Fahr., 
and  1.8  lb.  of  steam  were  produced  from  1  lb.  of  refuse.  It  was  hoped 
that  a  conversion  into  electrical  energy  would  not  only  supply  the 
demand  of  the  works,  but  make  available  a  surplus  for  disposal  to  the 
municipality. 

Since  then  two  plants  of  the  Heenan  type  have  been  built,  at  St. 
Ouen  and  at  Issy.  The  St.  Ouen  plant  has  four  6-cell  units,  each  having 
a  capacity  of  120  tons  per  twenty-four  hours,  with  trough  grates, 
electrically  operated  top-charging  and  operating  doors  controlled 
from  the  clinkering  floor.  The  clinker  is  withdrawn  by  a  winch 
into  a  special  skip,  which  is  picked  up  by  a  traveling  crane  and 
taken  to  a  clinker-cooling  apparatus,  where  the  clinker  is  broken 
up  and  immersed  in  water.  The  clinker  is  generally  used  for  brick 
making. 

A  test  of  four  daj'^s  and  five  hours  showed  that  about  1  ton  per  cell 
could  be  incinerated  in  one  hour.  The  residuals  after  burning  were 
18%  of  the  refuse  delivered.  The  electrical  energy  produced  was 
856  kw.  per  hour.  The  evaporation  per  pound  of  refuse  was  0.93  lb. 
of  water.  Several  collecting  trucks  were  supplied  with  storage  bat- 
teries charged  at  the  works. 

Meldrum  plants  were  built  in  the  suburbs  of  Ivry,  Romainville, 
and  Gennevillieres,  of  similar  capacity  and  efficiency. 

Although  the  Paris  incinerators  have  destroyed  the  objectionable 
quality  of  the  refuse,  the  anticipated  steam  production  has  not  been 
generally  realized. 

22.  Other  Incinerating  Plants. — In  addition  to  the  plants  just 
described,  there  are  many  in  use  for  burning  mixed  refuse  at  high 
temperatures,  particularly  in  England,  where,  in  almost  all  cities, 
such  refuse  contains  a  large  proportion  of  unburnt  coal.  Descriptions 
of  many  are  available  in  the  engineering  press  and  in  the  publica- 
tions of  Maxwell,  Goodrich,  Parsons,  Morse,  and  others.  Brief 
descriptions  of  essential  parts  of  several  American  and  European 
high-temperature  plants  will  be  found  also  in  this  chapter  under  C. 
Design  and  Construction,  and  D.  Tests. 

The  success  of  an  incinerating  plant  should  be  judged  by  the  degree 
to  which  it  complies  with  the  laws  of  combustion,  the  available  heat 


432     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

units  produced,  and  the  economy  of  operation.  Yet,  some  of  the 
best  of  such  plants  in  the  United  States,  as  at  San  Francisco,  Berkeley, 
and  Seattle,  have  been  ordered  suspended,  because  it  was  found  to 
be  cheaper  to  dump  the  refuse  at  sea  or  to  fill  up  low  land  without 
objection. 

G.  ADVANTAGES  AND  DISADVANTAGES 

There  are  a  number  of  advantages  and  disadvantages  in  refuse 
disposal  by  incineration,  other  than  cost.  Their  relative  importance 
will  vary  in  different  localities,  and  must  be  considered  carefully  in 
each  case.     The  most  important  are  given  below. 

Advantages 

a.  Incineration  permits  of  the  single-can  house  treatment,  with 
the  so-called  mixed  collection.  It  takes  a  slight  burden  off  the  house- 
holder in  keeping  the  different  parts  carefully  separated,  and  permits 
of  an  easy  and  generally  clean  collection. 

h.  The  cost  of  collection  can  be  reduced,  because  good  incinerators 
can  be  built  in  interior  parts  of  a  city.  They  can  frequently  be  estab- 
lished near  the  centers  of  the  largest  production  of  refuse,  thus 
reducing  the  length  of  haul  considerably. 

c.  The  possibility  of  having  several  plants  in  a  city  reduces  the 
risk  of  interrupting  the  disposal  in  case  of  the  destruction  of  one  of 
them  by  fire  or  otherwise. 

d.  The  process  is  thoroughly  sanitary,  and  destroys  all  organic 
matter  and  germ  life. 

e.  A  revenue  is  available  from  the  products  of  incineration, 
namely,  from  stsam  and  clinker,  and  it  is  possible  that  some  revenue 
could  be  secured  by  the  sale  of  dust  and  fine  ashes  as  a  fertilizer. 

Disadvantages 

a.  The  dust  produced  within  the  incinerator  building  during 
operation.  This,  however,  is  not  a  disadvantage  to  the  general 
public. 

b.  The  chance  of  the  escape  of  unconsumed  offensive  fumes  from 
the  chimney  top.  This  is  particularly  to  be  feared  when  the  charged 
refuse  is  deficient  in  combustible  matter,  and  in  low-temperature 
furnaces,  which,  however,  can  be  substantially  obviated  by  proper 
operation, 

c.  With  a  mixed    collection,  the  necessity  of  hauling  all  kinds  of 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  433 

refuse  to  the  incinerators,  instead  of  hauling  some  parts,  as  ashes,  to  a 
aear-by  dump,  increases  the  labor  of  collection. 


H.  EXAMPLE    OF    COMPUTING    THE    CALORIFIC  VALUE    OF    THE 
VARIOUS  CLASSES  OF  REFUSE 

According  to  Dawson,  the  calorific  value  of  various  constituents 
of  ashpit  refuse,  when  dry,  in  terms  of  heat  units  developed  per  pound 
of  combustible,  is  as  follows : 

Coal 14,000  B.t.u. 

Coke 12,000  B.t.u. 

Bones  and  offal 8,000  B.t.u. 

Breeze  and  cinders 6,000  B.t.u. 

Rags 5,000  B.t.u. 

Paper,  straw,  fibrous  material,  and  vegetable  refuse  3,800  B.t.u. 

Assuming  that  these  classes  of  materials  in  other  places  have  the 
same  calorific  values,  it  is  a  simple  matter  to  compute  the  approximate 
burning  qualities  of  the  refuse  of  any  city  when  we  know  the  relative 
proportions  of  the  various  classes. 

In  England  it  is  found  in  practice  that  from  1  to  2  lb.  of  water 
can  be  evaporated  per  pound  of  refuse.  In  some  German  cities  it 
was  found  that  from  ^  to  1  lb.  of  water  could  be  evaporated  per  pound 
of  refuse.  Let  us  now  take,  for  example,  the  refuse  of  New  York, 
and  compute  the  heating  power  from  the  constituents  of  the  various 
classes  of  wastes.     We  have,  then : 

1.  The  ashes  contain  25%  of  unconsumed  coal,  having  a  calorific 
value  when  dry  of,  say,  10,000  B.t.u.  The  remaining  75%  is  inert 
matter. 

2.  The  garbage  when  dried  contains  about  23%  of  animal  and 
vegetable  matter,  with  a  calorific  value  of,  say,  8000  B.t.u.;  5%  rub- 
bish and  combustible  waste  having  a  calorific  value  of,  say,  4500  B.t.u. 
The  remaining  matter  contains  about  2%  of  inert  matter  and  70%  of 
water. 

3.  The  rubbish  contains  about  95%  of  combustible  matter,  having 
a  calorific  value  of,  say,  4500  B.t.u.  The  remaining  portion  is  inert 
matter. 

4.  The  street  sweepings  contain  about  25%  of  organic  or  com- 
bustible matter,  having  a  calorific  value  of,  say,  4000  B.t.u.,  about 
40%  moisture,  and  about  35%  inert  matter. 

Taking,  then,  100  lb.  of  total  city  waste  and  resolving  it  into  various 
percentages,  we  obtain  in  tabular  form  the  following  results: 


434     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


Pounds 

of  each 

class 

of 

wastes 

Water 

Combustible 
Matter 

Inert  Matter 

Calorific 
Value  op 
Combustible 
Matter 

Per- 
cent- 
age 

Pounds 

Per- 
cent- 
age 

Pounds 

Per- 
cent- 
age 

Pounds 

B.t.u. 

per 
Pound 

of 
waste 

Total 
B.t.u. 

in 
wastes 

Ashes 

Garbage .  . . 

Refuse 

Sweepings. . 

Totals...  . 
Averages. . 

66 

10 

6 

18 

25 

28 
95 
25 

16.5 

2.8 
5.7 
4.5 

75 
2 

5 
35 

49.5 
0.2 
0.3 
6.3 

10,000 
7,500 
4,500 
4,000 

165,000 
21,000 
25,600 
18,000 

70 

7.0 

40 

7.2 

100 



14.2 

29.5 

56.3 

5,810 

229,600 

Thus  we  have  a  total  of  229,600  B.t.u.,  corresponding  to  about 
16i  lb.  of  coal,  having  a  calorific  value  of  14,000  B.t.u.,  and  14.2  lb.  of 
water.  This  water  must  first  be  evaporated,  and  the  residual  value 
of  the  combustible  may  then  be  considered  available  for  producing 
steam. 

Assuming  7  lb.  of  water  evaporated  per  pound  of  coal,  it  will 
require  2  lb.  of  coal  to  evaporate  the  14.2  lb.  of  water  in  the  refuse, 
and  the  difference  between  2  and  IQ^,  or  14|  lb.  of  coal  is  the  coal 
equivalent  of  the  100  lb.  of  mixed  refuse.  On  the  basis  of  7  lb.  of 
water  evaporated  per  pound  of  coal  (a  modest  estimate  for  steam  at 
100  lb.  pressure  from  any  good  boiler  under  ordinary  working  condi- 
tions), we  have  7  times  14|,  or  101  lb.  of  steam  per  100  lb.  of  mixed 
refuse,  equivalent  to  1.01  lb.  of  steam  per  pound  of  refuse  burned. 
This  is  the  quantity  of  steam  which  New  York  refuse,  properly  incin- 
erated in  a  destructor  of  modern  type,  should  develop.  This  figure 
also  compares  favorably  with  results  obtained  in  England  under 
ordinary  daily  conditions. 

I.  SPECIFICATIONS  FOR  CONSTRUCTION 


Specifications  for  refuse  incinerators  are  generally  accompanied  by 
one  or  two  general  lay-out  and  location  plans,  and  are  prepared  so 
that  different  manufacturers  can  base  their  bids  on  their  own  patterns 
and  designs.  On  this  account,  each  bidder  should  be  required  to  guar- 
antee the  operation  of  his  design,  both  for  efficiency  and  economy. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  435 

The  form  and  arrangement  of  the  specifications  for  refuse  incin- 
erators need  not  differ  from  those  required  for  other  municipal  works. 
The  specifications  for  materials  and  methods  of  construction  and 
for  machinery  are  not  essentially  different. 

Preceding  the  specifications,  of  course,  there  should  be  complete 
instructions  and  information  for  bidders.  The  first  section  of  the 
specifications  should  contain  concise  definitions  of  all  terms  in  regard 
to  which  there  might  be  misunderstanding. 

The  requirements  may  then  be  stated,  about  as  follows: 

1.  A  brief  statement  of  the  work  to  be  done. 

2.  A  description  of  the  location  of  the  plant,  the  size,  elevation, 
and  grades  of  the  lots,  and  the  subsoil  on  which  it  is  to  be  built. 

3.  The  capacity  of  the  plant,  in  tons  per  twenty-four  hours. 

4.  The  sanitary  requirements  in  the  operation  of  the  plant: 
Cleanliness,  freedom  from  dust,  smell,  smoke,  etc. 

5.  Maximum  and  minimum  temperatures  in  combustion  chamber. 
Average  temperature  and  rate  of  combustion. 

6.  Staterhent  of  composition  of  refuse:  Percentages  of  moisture 
and  combustible  matter. 

7.  Arrangement  of  furnaces,  combustion  chambers,  pre-heaters, 
forced-draft  apparatus,  air  ducts,  flues,  and  steam  boilers  in  units. 
Each  unit  to  consist  of  one  furnace  having  four  grates,  four  drying 
hearths,  four  clinker-cooling  chambers,  one  combustion  chamber,  one 
forced-draft  apparatus  with  air-heater  and  air-valves,  one  steam 
boiler  of  the  water-tube  type,  with  the  necessary  flues,  firing  tools,  and 
recording  instruments. 

8.  Statement  of  the  number  and  capacity  of  units.  Provision  in 
design  for  additional  units. 

9.  Conveying  system  for  handling  refuse  and  clinker;  ventilating 
system;  feed- water  pumps;  fuel-oil  system;  electric  equipment  for 
light  and  power;  system  of  pipes  and  appurtenances  for  conveying 
steam,  water,  and  oil;  crushing  plant  for  crushing  and  screening 
clinker;  baling  press  for  compacting  and  baling  tins;  instruments  for 
recording  and  controlling  operation  of  plant;  tools  and  supplies  for 
making  repairs,  etc. 

10.  Size  or  capacity  of  conveying,  ventilating,  steam,  and  water- 
pipe  systems,  boiler  feed  pumps,  electrical  equipment,  crushing  plant, 
baling  apparatus,  etc.,  with  provision  for  adding  to  the  equipment 
without  undue  expense. 

11.  General  description  of  plant;  refuse,  how  delivered;  refuse 
weighed;  platform  scales;  loads,  how  emptied;  containers  or  con- 
veying apparatus;  storage  of  containers;  refuse  transported  or 
handled  mechanically;    appliances  constructed  so  that  no  refuse  will 


436    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

be  spilled,  and  so  that  they  can  be  readily  cleaned.  No  stationary 
bins,  hoppers,  or  floor  space  for  storage  of  refuse.  Provision  for 
removal  of  cans  or  other  incombustible  material  too  large  to  be  put 
in  furnaces.  Refuse  to  be  fed  at  top  of  furnaces;  provision  for 
proper  stoking.  Furnaces  to  have  apparatus  for  burning  oil  when 
required.  Heat  of  clinker  and  ash  returned  to  furnace.  Clinker  and 
ash  removed  below  floor  level,  and  conveyed  to  crusher.  Provision 
for  crushing  and  screening  all  residue  from  furnaces,  and  baling  tins  and 
scrap.  Gases  from  furnaces  to  pass  through  boilers  for  generating 
steam,  and  through  heaters  for  pre-heating  air  for  combustion, 
and  then  to  the  stack.  Air  for  combustion  taken  from  near  top  of 
building,  conveyed  by  blowing  apparatus  through  pre-heaters  and 
distributed  to  furnaces.  Steam  which  is  not  used  for  operating  the 
incinerator  to  be  conducted  to  adjoining  room  or  building  where 
electric  generating  plant  is  erected.  Surplus  steam,  how  dis- 
posed of. 

12.  Incinerating  plants  to  comprise  all  weighing  scales,  hoppers, 
storage  containers,  conveying  equipment,  feeding  apparatus,  furnaces, 
fuel-oil  equipment,  boilers  and  feed  pumps  with  appurtenances  and 
connections,  pre-heaters,  flues,  blowers,  air  compressor,  crushing  and 
screening  apparatus,  baling  press  and  appurtenances,  electrical  equip- 
ment, pipes,  valves,  and  fittings,  instruments,  tools,  supplies,  etc. 

13.  Contractor  to  present  bid  for  entire  work  of  building  the  in- 
cinerating plant,  beginning  with  weighing  scales  and  ending  with 
conveyors  for  clinker  and  ash,  and  including  foundations,  flues, 
buildings,  chimney,  furnaces,  boilers,  generators,  etc.,  etc. 

14.  If  it  is  intended  to  use  the  excess  steam  for  power,  and  the 
clinker  and  ash  for  road  making,  concrete,  etc.,  this  should  be  stated, 
and  also  that  the  residue  must  be  completely  incinerated. 

15.  Contractor  to  present  full  plans  and  descriptions  of  entire 
work.  The  plans  and  descriptions  to  comply  with  requirements 
of  the  specifications.  Drawings  to  be  in  complete  detail,  and  show 
the  incinerating  building,  with  provision  for  its  extension  to  include 
additional  units,  the  chimney,  the  crushing  plant,  and  the  electrical 
equipment,  etc.  The  plans  to  be  in  enough  detail  to  indicate  the 
character  and  dimensions  of  all  foundations,  flues,  the  chimney,  etc.; 
also  the  weights  per  square  foot  on  the  various  foundations,  size  and 
location  of  doors  and  windows,  etc.,  etc. 

16.  The  size  of  the  drawings  may  be  specified  and  also  such  par- 
ticulars as  scales,  titles,  dimensions  and  dimension  lines,  etc. 

17.  City's  engineer  to  examine  drawings,  and,  when  approved, 
they  become  a  part  of  the  contract;  but,  engineer's  approval  to  refer 
only  to  general  design,  and  not  to  relieve  contractor  of  responsibility 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  437 

for  correct  proportioning  of  any  parts  of  the  work  or  for  any  defects 
in  construction. 

18.  Contractor  may  be  allowed  to  furnish  or  erect  a  certain  struc- 
ture or  apparatus  differing  from  that  originally  specified,  but  shall 
first  submit  drawings  and  descriptions  which  must  be  approved  by 
the  engineer. 

19.  Statement  in  full  of  scope  of  proposal:  Location  of  plant  and 
its  capacity,  complete  list  of  all  parts  of  the  plant,  and  provision  for 
detailed  test  after  completion. 

20.  The  price  bid  to  be  a  lump  sum  for  the  construction  of  the 
buildings  and  chimney,  the  furnishing  and  erecting  of  all  machinery 
in  complete  working  order,  and  the  conducting  of  a  test  in  accordance 
with  program  specified  by  the  engineer. 

21.  A  provision  may  be  inserted  requiring  the  bidder  to  guarantee 
a  certain  cost  per  ton  as  the  net  cost  for  incinerating  refuse  con- 
taining certain  percentages  of  water  and  combustible  (for  instance, 
for  San  Francisco,  these  quantities  were  1000  lb.  of  water  and  460  lb. 
of  combustible  per  ton).  Then  it  may  be  specified  that  he  be  required 
to  guarantee  also  decreased  or  increased  costs  per  ton  below  or  above 
the  first  guaranteed  cost  for  decreased  or  increased  quantities  of  water 
or  increased  or  decreased  quantities  of  combustible  in  the  refuse. 

22.  A  provision  may  also  be  inserted  requiring  the  bidder  to 
guarantee  the  number  of  pounds  of  refuse  (of  specified  composition) 
which  will  be  incinerated  per  square  foot  of  grate  area  per  hour. 

23.  The  bidder  to  be  required  to  state  the  probable  gross  rate  of 
evaporation  in  the  boilers,  from  and  at  212°  Fahr.,  per  pound  of  refuse 
(of  specified  composition)  consumed. 

The  following  method  of  determining  the  lowest  bid  was  adopted 
in  San  Francisco: 

The  bids  were  compared  on  the  basis  of  the  lowest  net  annual 
cost  for  operation.  This  bid  was  made  up  of  10%  of  the  bid  price 
for  construction  added  to  the  labor  cost  for  the  year,  the  latter  being 
determined  by  multiplying  the  guaranteed  cost  for  labor  by  the  total 
number  of  tons  per  year,  computed  from  the  guaranteed  capacity  of 
the  plant.  From  this  sum  was  deducted  the  annual  value  of  the  steam 
generated,  computed  from  the  guaranteed  rate  of  evaporation,  an 
assumed  value  of  steam,  the  total  annual  tonnage,  and  also  the 
value  of  the  clinker. 

The  lowest  price  thus  ascertained  was  designated  as  the  lowest  bid. 

The  specifications  may  give  detailed  descriptions  of  all  parts  of 
the  incinerating  plant,  machinery,  materials,  tools,  workmanship, 
etc.,  under  headings  somewhat  as  follows: 

Handling  refuse;  furnaces;  fuel-oil  equipment,  air  and  ventilation; 


438    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

furnace  gases;  handling  clinker ;  steam  generation ;  pipes,  valves,  and 
fittings;  electric  light  and  power  equipment;  instruments;  tools  and 
supplies;   and  materials  and  workmanship. 

There  should  be  a  statement  as  to  the  contractor's  guaranties 
relating  to  nuisance,  smoke,  gases,  dust,  temperatures,  residual 
clinker,  shut-downs,  rate  of  incineration,  and  costs  per  ton.  He 
should  also  be  required  to  guarantee  the  stability  of  the  founda- 
tions, buildings,  and  chimney,  and  also  the  construction  and  work- 
manship on  all  parts  of  the  machinery. 

The  details  of  the  tests  should  be  specified,  and  should  define 
the  time  when  they  are  to  be  made,  their  number,  and  length;  also 
details  of  any  special  tests  which  may  be  required  (for  instance,  with 
additional  fuel,  or  for  evaporation).  The  expense  of  making  the  tests 
is  generally  borne  by  the  contractor,  but  this  should  be  stated. 

The  methods  of  ascertaining  the  costs  of  incineration  during  the 
tests  should  be  fully  stated,  in  order  to  avoid  any  misunderstandings 
or  disputes  as  to  the  final  results. 

Then  should  follow  the  usual  sections  relating  to  "  Bonus  and 
Damages,"  "  Acceptance  and  Rejection,"  "  Time  of  Completion," 
"  Payments,"  and  "  General  Provisions." 

The  sections  in  specifications  which  require  special  consideration, 
because  they  are  somewhat  unusual,  are  those  relating  to  fire-brick, 
instruments,  guaranties,  and  tests.  There  has  been  a  marked  simi- 
larity in  specifications  covering  these  matters. 

For  fire-brick  the  San  Francisco  specifications  give  the  following 
clauses: 

"  Fire-brick. — All  fire-brick  used  shall  be  equal  to  the  best  grades  of  the 
following  manufacturers : 

" Harbeson- Walker  Refractories  Co.,  Pittsburg. 
Timmis  and  Co.,  Stourbridge,  England. 
Tornley  Iron  Co.,  Leeds,  England. 
Glenboig  Union  Fire-clay  Co.,  Glenboig,  Scotland. 
Hoganus,  Stockholm,  Sweden. 
"  Laying  Fire-brick. — All  fire-brick  shall  be  laid  with  the  closest  pos- 
sible joints,  with  a  paste  made  of  the  same  material  of  which  the  fire-bricks 
are  made.     The  proportions  shall  be  twenty  (20)  per  cent,  pulverized  fire- 
brick and  eighty  (80)  per  cent,  fire-clay,  with  not  more  than  one  and  one- 
quarter  (Ij)  per  cent,  of  hydrated  lime.    The  fire-clay  shall  be  slaked  or  wetted 
at  least  three  (3)  days  before  it  is  used,  and  shall  be  used  as  a  thin  paste  and 
not  as  a  mortar." 

Toronto,  Canada,  issued  specifications  in  January,  1915,  for  a 
180-ton  refuse  incinerator.  The  specifications  for  fire-brick  are  sim- 
ilar to  those  of  San  Francisco.  They  include  the  Elk  Fire-brick  Co. 
and  the  Gartcraig  Fire-clay  Co.  in  the  fist  of  manufacturers. 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  439 

The  authors  beUeve  that  bidders  should  be  given  more  informa- 
tion about  the  uses  for  the  fire-brick,  and  tiie  particular  qualities 
required  to  meet  these  uses. 

Instruments  for  reading  temperatures,  analyzing  flue  gases,  and 
measuring  draft  pressures  and  velocities  are  not  essential  to  the  opera- 
tion of  an  incinerator,  but,  as  they  promote  efficiency,  they  are  fre- 
quently included  in  the  plant.  The  most  complete  specifications  for 
instruments  are  in  the  San  Francisco  set.  The  requirements  are  sub- 
stantially as  follows: 

"  Sec.  180. — For  the  Islais  Creek  Station  the  contractor  shall  furnish  the 
following  instruments: 

"  Two  (2)  Recording  Electric  Pyrometer  Outfits  complete  with  roll  charts 
to  read  to  about  2500°  Fahrenheit. 

"  Three  (3)  four-foot  Platinum  Platinum-rhodium  Thermo-couple  Out- 
fits complete,  with  quartz  or  porcelain  protecting  tubes,  and  one  (1)  extra 
couple  and  tube  for  renewal. 

"  One  (1)  Indicating  Pyrometer  with  one  scale  reading  to  about  2400° 
Fahrenheit  and  calibrated  for  the  platinum  platinum-rhodium  couples,  and 
one  scale  reading  to  about  1200°  Fahrenheit  and  calibrated  for  the  medium 
temperature  thermo-couples. 

"  Ten  (10)  Double  Knife-blade  Switches  with  leads  from  a  suitably 
located  switchboard  to  fire-end  sockets  located  as  directed  by  the  City  Engi- 
neer. Leads  to  the  platinum  platinum-rhodium  couples  shall  be  arranged  to 
connect  with  both  recording  and  indicating  instruments. 

"  Six  (6)  Four-foot  Medium  Temperature  Thermo-couple  Outfits  for 
temperatures  up  to  about  1800°  Fahrenheit  complete,  with  one  (1)  extra 
fire-end  for  renewal. 

"  Two  (2)  Ellison  Differential  Draft  Gauges. 

"  Ten  (10)  U-tube  Draft  Gauges  to  read  to  10  in.  pressure. 

"  One  (1)  Simmance-Abady  CO2  Recorder,  or  equivalent,  approved  by  the 
City  Engineer,  with  connection  to  the  gas  exit  flue  of  each  unit. 

"  One  (1)  Crosby  or  Bristol  Recording  Steam  Gauge. 

"  One  (1)  Suitable  meter,  approved  by  the  City  Engineer,  for  continuous 
measm-ement  of  feed-water  supplied  to  the  boilers. 

"Sec.  181. — The  contractor  shall  provide  the  following  portable  instru- 
ments for  general  use  at  either  of  the  plants  as  may  be  desired. 

"  One  (1)  Ferry  Radiation  Pyrometer  Outfit  complete,  including  pyrometer 
with  adjustable  diaphragm,  galvanometer  with  two  (2)  direct  reading  Fahren- 
heit scales  and  certificate,  telescopic  tripod  stand,  thirty-three  (33)  feet  of 
leads  and  traveling  box. 

"  Six  (6)  Fire-clay  tubes  four  (4)  feet  long  for  the  above. 

"  One  (1)  Flue  Gas  Thermometer  graduated  to  1000°  Fahrenheit,  angle 
pattern,  with  Carrying  Case;  Nos.  2680  and  2685  Hohmann  &  Maurer's 
catalog,  Book  50. 

"  One  (1)  Separable  Socket  Thermometer  for  superheated  steam,  graduated 
to  about  600°  Fahrenheit;   No.  4927  Eimer  &  Amend's  catalog,  page  357. 


440    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  One  (1)  18"  Thermometer,  graduated  30°  to  212°  Fahrenheit  in  1-10 
degrees,  with  certificate  and  case;  No.  R  5809A  Braun-Knecht-Heimann's 
catalog,  page  387. 

"  One  (1)  Pitometer  suitable  for  measuring  the  velocity  of  gases  in  the  flues. 

"  One  (1)  or  more  Self-recording  Steam  Meters,  of  capacities  suitable  for 
measuring  all  the  steam  used  whUe  testing  the  incinerating  plants,  as  required 
and  directed  by  the  City  Engineer. 

"  One  (1)  Calorimeter  suitable  for  measuring  the  quality  of  steam  entering 
the  superheater,  complete. 

"  One  (1)  Set  of  apparatus  for  flue  gas  analysis  consisting  of  the  following 
items  or  equivalent.  The  numbers  refer  to  Eimer  &  Amend's  catalog  of  1907." 
****** 

This  list  is  far  more  complete  than  is  generally  required.  The 
Toronto  specifications  call  for  a  continuous  recording  radiation  pyrom- 
eter, a  CO 2  recorder,  thermometers  for  recording  the  temperatures  of 
chimney  gases,  pre-heated  air,  and  outside  air,  and  draft-gages  for 
recording  pressures  in  the  ashpits,  flues,  and  chimney.  This  is  the 
usual  equipment  called  for.  The  plans  and  specifications  should 
provide  for  a  suitable  dust-proof  room  in  which  to  keep  the  recording 
apparatus.  Cranes  and  other  machinery  exposed  to  dust  should  also 
be  properly  protected. 

A  most  important  part  of  incinerator  specifications  relates  to  the 
guaranties  and  tests.  The  requirements  of  guaranties  are  based  on 
the  conception  that  an  incinerator,  like  a  pumping  engine  or  boiler, 
must  operate  at  a  guaranteed  efficiency,  and  must  come  up  to  certain 
standards  set  forth  in  statements  by  the  bidder.  Plans  and  specifi- 
cations are  drawn  to  allow  each  bidder  or  manufacturer  to  make 
use  of  his  own  patterns  for  castings,  etc.,  and  also,  to  a  limited 
extent,  of  his  own  general  design  and  method  of  operation.  On  this 
account,  bidding  should  not  be  limited  to  labor  and  materials,  but 
should  also  partly  include  design.  The  contractor  guarantees  his 
design  to  produce  certain  results.  The  guaranties  include,  not  only 
the  results  of  the  operation  of  the  furnaces,  boilers,  and  appurten- 
ances, but  also  the  labor  and  power  required  to  produce  the  results 
in  practice. 

The  value  of  an  incinerator  to  a  purchaser  is  taken  to  be  the  net 
cost  of  operation,  which  includes  credits  for  the  products  of  operation 
and  debits  for  the  labor  and  other  elements  of  cost.  Bids,  therefore, 
have  been  compared  on  this  final  net  annual  cost  rather  than  on  the 
first  cost.  A  more  expensive,  but  more  efficient,  plant,  with  lower 
annual  cost,  may  secure  the  award.  This  method  of  guaranty  was 
first  used  at  Milwaukee  in  1908.  The  bid  of  the  Power  Specialty 
Company  was  not  the  lowest  one  received  for  construction,  but  it 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  441 

secured  the  work  on  account  of  the  better  over-all  efficiency  guar- 
anteed. In  addition  to  the  guaranties  on  efficiency  and  cost,  certain 
others,  fixing  sanitary  standards  of  operation,  should  be  included. 

The  Toronto  specifications  required  substantially  the  following 
guaranties : 

"  (1)  That  there  will  be  no  smoke  at  any  time  escaping  from  the  chimney 
of  a  degree  of  darkness  or  density  greater  than  that  determined  by  Chart  No.  1 
of  Ringlemann's  smoke  scale,  as  supplied  by  the  United  States  Geological 
Survey. 

"  (2)  That  there  will  be  no  dust  emitted  from  the  top  of  the  chimney. 

"  (3)  That  the  residue  shall  not  contain  more  than  one  per  cent,  of  organic 
matter,  exclusive  of  carbon." 

A  determination  of  the  capabilities  of  the  plant  to  fulfill  such 
guaranties  must  be  based  on  tests.  The  method  of  conducting  the.se 
tests  must  be  described  clearly  in  the  specifications,  as  a  safeguard 
to  the  purchaser  and  in  fairness  to  the  contractor.  The  character 
of  the  refuse  to  be  used  during  the  tests  must  be  defined  as  closely  as 
practicable,  so  that  the  contractor  has  a  reasonably  definite  basis  for 
his  guaranties.     (See  Chapter  X.  D.) 

During  the  past  few  years  there  has  been  an  improvement  in  the 
sections  of  specifications  covering  the  character  of  the  refuse.  This 
matter  is  covered  in  the  Toronto  specifications  as  follows : 

"  The  contractor  hereby  guarantees  that  the  following  conditions  will  be 
fulfilled,  subject  to  the  judgment  of  the  engineer,  when  the  furnaces  are 
incinerating,  without  additional  fuel,  at  or  about  their  rated  capacities,  refuse 
containing  not  more  than  nine  hundred  and  forty  (940)  poimds  of  water 
per  ton,  determined  by  evaporation  tests,  and  not  less  than  four  himdred 
and  sixty  (460)  pounds  of  combustible  per  ton,  determined  by  combustion 
tests." 

Specifications  for  garbage  furnaces  are  more  often  prepared  by 
contractors  and  manufacturers  than  by  municipal  engineers,  and 
are  offered  to  the  purchaser  as  a  description  of  the  plant  they  pro- 
pose to  build  and  the  character  of  the  workmanship  and  materials 
they  propose  to  furnish.  This  usage  is  frequently  found  in  small 
cities. 

Usually,  however,  better  results  are  to  be  expected  if  thorough  and 
complete  specifications  are  prepared  by  the  city  through  its  engineers. 
Under  such  specifications,  and  with  proper  inspection  during  con- 
struction, a  plant  with  a  longer  useful  life  will  generally  be  secured,  and 
better  results  in  operation  will  follow,  if,  for  instance,  leaks  of  cold  air, 
due  to  poor  construction,  are  eliminated.  Also,  a  low  cost  for  repairs 
will  follow  execution  under  good  specifications. 


442     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


J.    SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

Burning  refuse  systematically  has  been  practiced  for  many  years  in 
America  and  abroad.  American  practice  started  with  the  burning  of 
garbage  alone,  using  coal  as  a  necessary  auxiliary  fuel;  European 
practice  has  been  developed  along  the  lines  of  an  incineration  of  mixed 
refuse  without  an  additional  fuel.  Furnaces  of  special  designs  have 
been  built  for  each  of  these  practices.  Within  the  past  few  years  in 
America  several  large  mixed-refuse  incinerators  have  also  been 
operated  quite  successfully.  Each  method  of  burning  can  be  sanitary 
and  efficient  through  proper  design  and  operation;  their  relative 
preference  for  a  special  case  will  usually  depend  on  the  annual  cost, 
including  fixed  charges. 

The  principles  of  refuse  incineration  are  now  well  established,  and 
their  practical  application  is  becoming  better  understood;  yet  there  is 
still  a  need  for  a  more  general  use  of  the  best  designs  and  more  intelli- 
gent operation,  and  the  preparation  of  specifications  to  insure  proper 
construction  and  operation. 

The  following  conditions  may  be  considered  among  the  essentials 
of  a  satisfactory  incinerator: 

The  design  must  be  arranged  so  that  the  charging  with  refuse  can 
be  rapid  and  thorough,  and  permits  but  a  minimum  of  cold  air  to 
enter  the  furnace  during  a  charge.  The  refuse  for  every  charge  must 
be  well  mixed  and  contain  a  sufficient  quantity  of  combustible  matter. 

The  cells  and  flues  should  be  arranged  so  that  only  pre-heated  air 
passes  over  every  part  of  the  fire,  and  that  the  subsequent  fumes  enter 
a  sufficiently  large  combustion  chamber,  adjoining  the  cells,  on  their 
way  to  the  boilers  and  chimney. 

The  temperature  of  the  developed  heat  must  be  high  enough  at  its 
minimum  to  destroy  effectually  all  organic  solid  and  gaseous  matter 
before  reaching  the  chimney,  which  requirement,  therefore,  almost  in- 
variably necessitates  the  use  of  forced  draft  and  a  combustion  chamber, 
and  in  low-temperature  furnaces  frequently  the  addition  of  some  fuel. 

No  dust  should  escape  from  the  chimney,  which  requirement 
demands  a  properly  designed  dust  settling  chamber,  to  give  a  suf- 
ficiently slow  velocity  to  the  ascending  gases. 

Boilers  for  steam  production  should  be  placed  immediately  beyond 
tlie  combustion  chamber,  in  order  to  get  the  greatest  available  heat. 
Pre-heated  air  for  the  grate  fires  should  be  produced  beyond  the  boilers. 

Ashes  and  clinkers  should  be  removed  quickly  and  inoffensively, 
with  a  minimum  of  dust;  and  be  utilized,  as  far  as  possible,  by  their  con- 
version into  salable  materials,  unless  filling  up  land  is  more  desirable. 

In  Europe  steam  production  from  mixed  refuse,  and  its  utilization, 


INCINERATION  OF  REFUSE  443 

is  practically  everywhere  accomplished,  notwithstanding  that  the 
percentage  of  unbunit  coal  contained  in  domestic  refuse  is  no  greater, 
but  generally  less,  than  in  America,  except  where  oil  and  gas  are  the 
principal  fuels.  (SeeChapter  I.  G.)  Steam  is  utilized,  not  only  to  move 
cranes,  buckets,  valves,  and  doors,  but  to  generate  electricity  for  both 
lighting  and  power  purposes.  Westmount,  Que.,  has  utilized  the  steam 
produced  by  incineration  in  this  manner  for  many  years.  We  have 
but  a  few  such  cases  in  the  United  States,  yet  the  conditions  inviting 
the  same  results  exist  here  as  well  as  they  do  in  England.  We  should 
therefore  give  more  attention  than  heretofore  to  the  utilization  of 
steam,  chiefly  to  reduce  cost  rather  than  to  expect  profit. 

The  reasons  why  American  incinerators  rarely  develop  much 
steam,  are,  first,  the  more  common  practice  of  erecting  plants  of 
cheaper  first  cost,  which  are  not  designed  for  efficient  steam  production, 
and  secondly,  unskillful  operation,  which  produces  low  temperatures 
and  consequently  incomplete  combustion  with  bad  odors. 

The  adoption  of  low-temperature  furnaces,  when  the  average 
material  has  a  sufficiently  high  combustible  value,  is  justified  only 
in  the  case  of  perfect  reliance  on  an  efficient  operation,  both  in  the 
collection  service  and  burning  of  the  garbage.  Most  of  our  present 
furnaces  frequently  do  not  produce  a  sufficiently  high  temperature 
to  prevent  the  occasional  escape  of  offensive  odors,  because  of  neglect 
partly  in  failing  to  add  enough  fuel  when  required  to  destroy  all  the 
odorous  gases  which  are  to  be  expected  and  partly  in  failing  to  mix 
the  materials  of  the  charges  so  that  they  can  produce  a  sufficiently 
high  temperature  to  destroy  all  the  objectionable  organic  matter. 

The  details  relating  to  the  operation  of  refuse  incinerators  have 
lately  developed  markedly  along  the  lines  of  greater  mechanical 
control,  eliminating  hard  labor,  speeding  up  the  various  operations, 
increasing  the  efficiency,  and  improving  the  combustion. 

If  refuse  can  be  incinerated  in  properly  designed  and  operated 
high-temperature  furnaces,  without  producing  a  nuisance,  which  has 
been  amply  demonstrated  in  practice  for  years  both  abroad  and  here,  it 
is  feasible  then,  not  only  to  burn  the  refuse  at  selected  points  wdthin  a 
city,  as  in  London,  and  thus  greatly  shorten  the  collection  haul  and 
reduce  its  expense,  but  also  to  simplify  the  house  treatment  in  many 
districts  where  separation  is  now  irksome.  The  utilization  of  hard 
clinkers  as  a  concrete  aggregate  in  building  operations  would  reduce 
the  cost  of  their  removal  to  a  distance,  and  the  generation  of  elec- 
tricity would  reduce  the  total  cost  of  incineration,  and  sometimes 
also  of  the  collection. 

In  any  particular  case  sanitary  results  coupled  with  careful 
estimates  of  cost  should  decide  whether  or  not  incineration  is  best. 


CHAPTER   XI 
REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 

The  development  of  the  reduction  method  for  the  final  disposal 
of  garbage  has  been  due,  in  a  great  measure,  to  American  initiative, 
for,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  experimental  operations,  no  plants 
have  been  built  in  other  countries.  Without  doubt,  the  greater  waste- 
fulness of  the  American  people  is  one  reason  for  this  development,  as 
it  produces  a  garbage  rich  in  recoverable  elements. 

The  reduction  method  is  a  combination  of  mechanical  and  chemical 
processes  whereby  the  garbage  is  separated  into  four  parts:  Volatile 
matter  (driven  off  as  gas),  water,  grease,  and  "  tankage."  The  latter 
is  a  dry  material,  which  is  somewhat  stable,  mostly  fibrous,  and  of 
vegetable  and  animal  origin.  The  grease  and  tankage  have  market 
values,  which  is  the  chief  reason  for  the  development  of  this  process. 
Garbage  grease  is  used  in  the  manufacture  of  soap,  candles,  glycerine, 
and  other  materials,  and  has  been  selling  at  from  3  to  10  cents  per 
pound.  The  tankage  is  used  as  a  filler  or  base  for  certain  fertilizers, 
and  has  been  selling  at  from  $5  to  $10  per  ton,  generally  according 
to  its  ammonia  content.  The  volatile  matter  driven  off  contains  foul- 
smelling  gases,  and  this  source  of  odor  must  be  destroyed  by  fire  or 
otherwise,  if  nuisances  are  to  be  avoided. 

The  commercial  character  of  the  process,  the  risks  involved,  and 
the  need  for  expensive  machinery  and  skillful  operation,  have  gen- 
erally prevented  the  process  from  being  adopted  in  cities  with  popu- 
lations of  less  than  about  75,000.  As  it  can  be  used  for  the  disposal 
only  of  garbage  and  dead  animals,  it  therefore  requires  a  separate 
collection  system. 

The  reduction  of  garbage  into  grease  and  fertilizer  originated  in 
Austria,  where,  in  Vienna,  the  "  Merz  "  process  was  first  introduced 
experimentally,  but  was  not  developed  successfully  on  a  working  scale 
for  large  cities  until  its  introduction  into  America  at  Buffalo,  in  May, 
1886,  by  Mr.  H.  A.  Fleischman,  who  organized  a  company  to  "  man- 
ufacture grease  and  fertilizer  from  city  refuse."  A  contract  was  made 
with  that  city  whereby  the  garbage  was  to  be  kept  separate  from  all 
the  other  refuse  and  delivered  at  the  company's  works. 

444 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  445 

The  topography  of  American  cities  and  the  distribution  of  the  ]Kjp- 
ulation  over  comparatively  large  areas,  have  provided  opportunities 
for  the  ready  disposal  of  ashes,  rubbish,  street  sweepings,  and  other 
more  or  less  inert  kinds  of  refuse,  by  dumping  on  low  lands.  As 
garbage,  when  dumped  in  this  way,  decomposes  and  produces  odors 
and  nuisances,  a  different  method  for  its  disposal  was  demanded. 
Conditions  in  America  were  favorable  to  the  development  of  garbage 
reduction,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  high  percentage  of  grease  obtain- 
able. As  an  inoffensive  burning  of  garbage,  unmixed  with  other 
kinds  of  refuse,  was  found  to  be  expensive,  the  possibility  of  obtaining 
a  revenue  by  using  the  reduction  process  for  its  disposal  became 
attractive,  and  the  Austrian  invention  was  received  favorably  by 
American  promoters.  Several  processes  were  developed  subsequently 
and  became  known  by  the  names  of  their  respective  inventors.  These 
are  described  briefly  herein. 

A.  FUNDAMENTAL  CONSIDERATIONS 

Reduction  processes  consist  of  a  breaking  up  of  the  garbage  by  the 
application  of  heat  and  mechanical  agitation,  so  that  the  valuable 
constituents  can  be  recovered  and  prepared  for  the  market.  Osborn 
has  classified  these  processes  as  follows : 

"  At  the  present  time  garbage  is  usually  reduced  by  one  of  two  methods, 
and,  for  distinction,  all  the  plants  operating  can  be  considered  as  using  either 
the  drying  or  the  cooking  method. 

"  The  two  methods  might  be  described  as  follows: 

"  1.  Drying  Method. — The  drying  method  consists  in  crushing  or  grinding 
the  crude  garbage  and  passing  it  through  direct-heat  driers  to  drive  off  the 
moisture  and  break  down  the  cells.  The  dry  solids  are  then  placed  in  extractor 
tanks  and  the  grease  is  recovered  by  percolation,  using  gasoline  as  a  solvent. 
"  2.  Cooking  Method. — The  cooking  method  consists  in  placing  the  gar- 
bage in  digester  tanks,  where  it  is  cooked,  and  then  extracting  the  free  grease 
and  moisture  by  pressing.  The  solids  from  the  presses  are  then  dried,  and, 
in  the  modern  plants,  the  dried  tankage  is  percolated  to  recover  the  grease  that 
is  not  extracted  by  the  presses. 

"  The  relative  advantages  of  the  two  methods  give  rise  to  a  difference  of 
opinion,  although  at  the  present  time  the  majority  of  plants  are  operated  by 
the  cooking  method.     The  advantages  and  disadvantages  of  the  two  methods 
might  be  summed  up  as  follows: 
"  Advantages  of  Drying  Method: 

"  1.  The  first  cost  of  the  plant  is  less,  due  to  the  smaller  equipment  and 
building  space  required. 

"2.  The  operating  costs  are  less,  due  to  the  smaller  amount  of  labor  and 
power  required. 


446     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  Disadvantages  of  Drying  Method: 

"1.  Carbonizing  of  the  grease  in  the  drier,  due  to  the  high  temperature 
required,  so  that  the  maximum  amount  of  grease  is  not  recovered. 

"2.  The  material  is  not  broken  down  to  let  the  solvent  act  as  readily  on 
the  grease  particles  and  aUow  maximum  recovery. 

"3.  The  mechanical  condition  of  the  by-products  is  not  desirable  without 
additional  treatment. 

"4.  There  is  a  greater  volume  of  gases  to  be  deodorized,  making  it  difficult 
to  deodorize  it  economically. 
"  Advantages  of  Cooking  Method: 

"1.  The  cells  of  the  material  are  more  completely  broken  down,  so  that  a 
larger  amount  of  grease  can  be  readily  recovered. 

"2.  All  material  is  enclosed  during  the  process,  so  that  the  gases  are  more 
readily  deodorized  and  their  volume  is  less. 

"3.  In  the  modern  plants,  the  mechanical  condition  of  the  by-products  is 
better. 
"  Disadvantages  of  Cooking  Method: 

"  1    Increased  first  cost  of  building  and  equipment. 

"2.  Increased  operating  cost. 

"  3.  Increased  maintenance  cost. 

"  The  by-products  from  either  method  have  the  same  relative  market 
value.  In  plants  that  have  been  operated  by  both  methods  the  experience  has 
been  that  the  additional  amount  of  grease  recovered  by  the  cooking  method 
has  more  than  offset  the  increased  cost,  and  at  the  same  time  the  odors  were 
eliminated  to  a  larger  extent.' 

The  desired  results  from  reduction  processes  are  the  production  of 
the  greatest  quantities  of  grease  and  tankage,  having  the  most  valuable 
qualities,  in  the  most  economical  way,  and  with  as  much  cleanliness 
and  freedom  from  nuisance  as  practicable.  The  raw  material  is 
garbage,  which  generally  contains  more  than  70%  of  water  and  less 
than  30%  of  solid  matter.  The  water  is  useless.  The  solid  matter 
contains  a  mixture  of  vegetable  and  animal  fats,  and  of  nitrogen, 
phosphate,  and  other  elements  which  are  valuable  as  fertilizers. 

The  garbage  reduction  process  differs  from  that  used  in  the  man- 
ufacture of  other  oils  and  fats  chiefly  in  the  facts  that  there  is  a  com- 
paratively large  percentage  of  water  in  the  raw  material,  and  that 
both  animal  and  vegetable  fats  are  present.  By  simply  crushing  the 
garbage  and  allowing  sedimentation,  some  grease  can  be  skimmed 
off,  and  the  solids  have  some  fertilizing  or  food  value.  If  the  gar- 
bage is  cooked  in  an  open  kettle,  grease  can  also  be  skimmed  off, 
the  water  drained  away,  and  solids  with  some  fertilizing  or  food  value 
can  be  recovered.  The  later  processes  have  introduced  a  greater  pro- 
duction of  grease  by  crushing  and  cooking,  and  extracting  it  more 
completely  with  solvents.  The  solids  must  then  be  dried  to  produce 
a  marketable  tankage.     The  escaping  waste  liquids  and  gases  are 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  447 

objectionable,  and  must  be  treatca  in  a  sanitary  way.  The  modern 
processes  have  been  designed  to  secure  these  results  with  a  satisfactory 
control  of  the  foul  gases  and  liquids. 

The  design  of  reduction  works  requires  a  special  knowledge  of  the 
materials  to  be  handled  and  produced.  The  most  pertinent  features 
will  be  described. 

B.  PLANT  LOCATION 

The  fact  that  offensive  gases  and  odors  arise  from  the  reduction 
treatment  of  garbage  makes  it  necessary  for  a  city  to  destroy  them 
completely  or,  if  this  cannot  be  done  economically,  to  remove  the 
works  to  a  favorable  or  distant  locality  where  odors,  if  detected  onl}' 
occasionally,  would  not  be  objectionable. 

The  preference  should  be  decided  by  the  community,  as  to  how  far 
it  will  take  a  risk.  The  expense  of  the  works  must  be  increased  in 
order  to  provide  sufficient  means  both  to  destroy  the  offensive  gases 
completely  and  to  occupy  land  near  the  city;  but  a  shortening  of  haul 
sometimes  greatly  reduces  the  expense  of  delivery.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  sufficiently  far  from  residences,  and  where,  as  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  similar  establishments,  an  occasional  odor  may  be  per- 
missible, the  works  may  be  operated  less  expensively. 

The  cost  due  to  a  longer  delivery  route  is  generallj^  much  greater. 
In  Milwaukee  it  was  found  to  be  more  expensive  to  establish  a  reduc- 
tion plant  at  the  nearest  permissible  point,  on  account  of  the  greater 
cost  of  delivery,  than  to  build  incinerators  near  the  center  of  the  city. 
In  Toronto,  where  the  most  economical  solution  was  a  reduction  plant 
several  miles  from  the  city,  but  in  a  neighborhood  that  was  desirable 
for  good  residences,  it  was  decided  to  build  an  incineration  plant,  at  a 
less  distant  point,  but  in  a  neighborhood  where  it  was  not  deemed 
objectionable.  Where  a  plant  cannot  be  placed  at  a  near  point,  and  it 
becomes  necessary  to  have  a  transfer  station,  with  a  final  delivery  by 
motor  truck,  rail,  or  water,  the  cost  of  transportation  per  mile  thereby 
becoming  less,  it  may  sometimes  be  better  to  select  at  once  a  suf- 
ficiently distant  point,  so  that  it  may  become  permanently  established 
as  such  in  its  neighborhood. 

In  very  large  cities  it  has  been  found  more  economical  and  quite 
satisfactory,  as  in  London,  England,  to  establish  a  number  of  incin- 
erating plants  within  the  metropolis,  and  thereby  shorten  the  length 
of  collection  hauls.  Such  a  solution  has  not  yet  been  attempted  with 
reduction  plants,  probably  for  two  reasons.  One  is,  that  assuming 
100  tons  of  garbage  could  be  disposed  of  at  the  same  cost,  either  by  a 
single  reduction  or  a  single  incineration  plant,  then  it  would  cost  more 
to  establish  and  operate  two  reduction  plants  each  of  50  tons  capacity, 


448     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

than  two  incineration  plants  each  of  50  tons  capacity,  because  the 
former  have  more  complicated  machinery  and  are  more  difl&cult  to 
operate.  Another  reason  is  that  the  odors  in  the  former  are  more 
difficult  to  control  because,  at  reduction  works,  the  odors  are  pro- 
duced by  the  process,  while  at  an  incinerator  they  are  prevented  or 
destroyed  by  the  process. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  reduction  plants,  for  instance,  at  Roch- 
ester, Toledo,  Chicago,  and  Los  Angeles  are  quite  favorably  located 
as  regards  haul  of  garbage  and  operation  of  the  works.  These  plants 
have  been  in  use  a  number  of  years,  and  there  has  been  no  apparent 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  cities  to  change  their  locations.  The 
plants  at  Toledo  and  Chicago  are  in  locations  adjoining  stock  yards 
and  packing  houses,  where  odors  are  expected.  The  plant  location  at 
Rochester,  apparently  satisfactory,  is  near  the  center  of  the  city  and  in 
what  would  usually  seem  to  be  a  rather  critical  location. 

It  thus  appears  necessary,  when  considering  plant  locations,  to 
canvass  carefully  the  local  conditions,  so  that  favorable  local  circum- 
stances may  be  advantageously  utilized. 

C.  PROCESSES 

1.  Merz. — In  the  Merz  process  the  garbage  is  first  dumped  into 
a  large  hopper  and  the  free  water  allowed  to  drain  off.  It  is  then 
spread  out,  so  that  foreign  matter,  such  as  cans,  bottles,  rags,  metals, 
bones,  etc.,  can  be  picked  out.  The  remaining  garbage  is  then  ground 
in  crushers,  and  the  comminuted  mass  is  dumped  into  hot-air  driers, 
or  the  crude  garbage  is  dumped  directly  into  them.  In  the  driers  the 
mass  is  stirred  with  mechanical  mixers  and  dried  for  a  period  of  from 
one  to  six  hours,  so  that  the  material  is  partly  broken  up  and  much  of 
the  moisture  driven  off.  The  dried  material  is  dark  brown  and 
greasy.  In  this  condition  it  is  put  into  extractors,  or  closed  tanks, 
through  which  a  solvent,  such  as  naphtha  or  benzine,  percolates; 
this  dissolves  the  grease  and  thus  "  extracts  "  it.  The  grease  is 
recovered  from  the  solvent  by  heating  in  closed  receptacles  which  are 
arranged  so  that  the  naphtha  is  distilled  off  and  the  grease  remains. 
This  is  then  drawn  off  and  barreled  for  sale.  The  solids,  left  over 
after  the  grease  is  extracted,  are  dried,  ground,  stored,  and  sold  as 
tankage. 

In  some  of  the  earlier  Merz  plants  the  drying  was  done  in  steam- 
jacketed  driers,  which  required  more  time  and  were  more  expensive 
to  operate  than  now.  In  recent  plants  the  crushed  garbage  is  passed 
through  direct-heat  driers,  in  which  it  comes  into  direct  contact  with 
the  hot  air,  and  is  dried  more  quickly. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  449 

The  gases  produced  in  these  several  processes  are  conveyed  to  a 
cooling  tower  and  washed  with  a  fine  spray  of  water  to  reduce  their 
offensiveness. 

Reduction  works  of  the  Merz  type  were  built  and  have  been 
operated  at  Buffalo,  Milwaukee,  St.  Paul,  Paterson,  St.  Louis,  Colum- 
bus, and  Chicago.  The  plants  at  Milwaukee,  St.  Paul,  and  Paterson 
have  been  abandoned,  and  the  others  have  been  materially  modified. 

2.  Simonin. — In  the  Simonin  process  the  solvent  used  for  grease 
extraction  is  appUed  directly  to  the  garbage  before  it  is  dried.  The 
garbage  is  first  dumped  on  a  concrete  floor,  and  the  cans  and  rubbish 
are  picked  out.  It  is  then  placed  in  shallow  iron  pans,  built  up  in 
successive  layers  on  trucks.  The  loaded  trucks  are  run  into  horizontal 
cylindrical  extracting  ovens,  6  ft.  in  diameter  and  18  ft.  long.  These 
extractors,  or  digesters,  are  closed  tightly  and  filled  with  naphtha. 
The  contents  are  then  heated  and  digested  as  long  as  twenty-four  hours 
by  steam  coils  fixed  in  the  bottom  of  the  digesters.  The  garbage 
water  and  the  naphtha  not  used  for  extracting  grease  are  both  with- 
drawn as  vapor  from  the  digester  to  a  condenser  and  then  to  a  set- 
tling and  separating  tank,  from  which  the  water  is  drained  to  the 
sewer  and  the  naphtha  flows  into  storage  tanks. 

The  naphtha,  with  the  dissolved  grease,  is  drawn  off  from  the 
digesters  into  evaporators,  in  which  the  evaporation  is  continued  untU 
most  of  the  free  naphtha  is  driven  off  to  the  condensers.  A  solution 
of  grease  is  left  in  the  evaporating  tank  from  which  it  is  drawn  off 
into  the  settling  tank,  and  the  naphtha  is  separated  from  the  grease 
by  distillation.  The  solids  or  tankage  remaining  in  the  digesters 
are  heated  several  times  by  live  steam,  to  drive  off  the  water  and  any 
remaining  naphtha.  The  dried  tankage  is  taken  out,  screened, 
and  is  then  ready  for  sale  as  a  dilutant  for  strong  fertilizers.  The 
whole  process  requires  about  forty-eight  hours.  The  offensive  gases 
escaping  when  the  digesters  are  opened  have  caused  considerable 
complaint. 

The  first  plant  of  this  type  was  built  in  Providence,  in  1890. 
The  works  comprised  two  steam  boilers,  six  extractors  or  digesters,  two 
settling  tanks,  two  stills,  and  a  storage  house  for  naphtha.  Reduc- 
tion plants  of  this  type  were  built  also  at  Cincinnati  and  New  Orleans, 
but  they  have  been  abandoned  and  replaced  by  others. 

3.  Arnold. — The  Arnold  process  was  used  on  a  working  scale  first 
near  Boston  in  1895,  where  a  plant  was  constructed  from  plans  pre- 
pared by  Mr.  Charles  Edgerton,  of  Philadelphia.  Therefore,  it  is 
sometimes  spoken  of  as  the  Arnold-Edgerton  process.  It  was  the 
first  one  to  practice  the  cooking  of  garbage  with  live  steam.  After 
the  glass,  tin  cans,  rubbish,  and  other  undesirable  materials  are  picked 


450     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

out,  the  garbage  is  dumped  into  vertical  digesters,  each  holding  about 
8  tons.  These  have  conical  bottoms,  and  are  filled  at  the  top  from  a 
traveling  conveyor.  The  garbage  is  then  cooked  from  five  to  eight 
hours  under  pressure  with  live  steam.  At  the  end  of  this  time  it  has 
been  thoroughly  broken  up.  The  mass  resembles  a  thick  brown 
greasy  soup,  and  is  withdrawn  from  the  bottom  of  the  digester  into 
receiving  tanks  from  which,  at  the  will  of  the  operator,  it  is  drawn  into 
a  power  press  which  separates  the  liquids  from  the  solids.  The  liquids 
consist  of  grease  and  water,  which  are  again  separated  in  a  settling 
tank  by  gravity,  and  the  grease  reduced  to  a  commercial  form.  The 
water  drains  off  into  a  sewer,  and  the  grease  flows  into  tanks,  from 
which  it  is  barreled  and  sold.  The  solid  tankage  enters  steam- 
jacketed  driers,  is  agitated,  pulverized,  dried,  ground,  screened,  and 
sold  as  a  filler  for  fertilizers. 

In  some  of  the  later  plants  the  solid  matter  coming  from  the  driers 
is  treated  a  second  time  with  a  solvent  while  passing  through  supple- 
mentary percolators  or  extractors,  and  an  additional  quantity  of 
grease  is  withdrawn,  which  also  increases  the  fertilizing  value  of  the 
tankage.  In  order  to  render  the  steam  and  gases  from  the  digesters 
and  other  apparatus  less  offensive,  they  are  conveyed  to  condensers 
and  boilers  before  they  are  discharged  into  the  outside  air.  Plants 
of  this  type  have  been  built  and  operated  at  Boston,  Philadelphia, 
New  York,  Baltimore,  and  Rochester. 

4.  Holthaus. — In  Bridgeport,  Conn.,  in  1887,  a  method  was  utilized 
differing  only  slightly  from  that  introduced  by  Simonin.  Naphtha 
was  used  for  extracting  the  grease  in  digesters  of  smaller  capacity,  and 
the  machinery  and  apparatus  were  of  better  design  and  construction. 
The  plant  was  destroyed  by  an  explosion  of  the  naphtha  vapors. 
Another  Holthaus  plant  was  built  in  Syracuse,  but,  instead  of  using 
naphtha,  the  grease  was  extracted  with  steam.  This  plant  was 
destroyed  by  fire.  New  Bedford  adopted  this  sytem  in  1894,  and 
built  works  3  miles  from  the  City  Hall.  Naphtha  again  was  used, 
but  only  for  extracting  the  grease  left  in  the  tankage  after  most  of  it 
had  been  removed  previously  by  steam.  Again  an  explosion  destroyed 
the  plant. 

5.  Chamberlain. — The  "  Liquid  Separating  Process,"  invented  by 
Mr.  M.  H.  Chamberlain,  was  first  used  at  Detroit  in  1898.  It  was 
recommended  as  an  improvement  on  the  previous  processes.  The 
Detroit  works  were  built  at  French's  Landing,  about  20  miles  outside 
the  city.  The  principal  new  feature  is  a  special  digester,  the  bottom  of 
which  is  provided  with  three  concentric  circular  cylinders  having  double 
walls,  which  are  closed  at  the  top  and  open  at  the  bottom.  The  sides  of 
the  cylinders  are  perforated.     After  the  cooking  period,  steam  at  high 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  451 

pressure  enters  the  digester  so  as  to  force  the  cylinders  up  and  drive 
out  the  Uquids  carrying  the  grease.  The  water  and  grease  which 
have  been  pressed  out  are  separated  by  gravity,  and  the  solid  matter  is 
dried  and  otherwise  prepared  for  the  market.  Plants  of  this  type 
were  built  also  at  Indianapolis,  Cincinnati,  and  Washington. 

6.  Wiselogel. — Mr.  Frederick  G.  Wiselogel  was  for  many  years 
connected  with  the  construction  of  the  Simonin  and  Merz  garbage 
reduction  plants  and  later  with  the  St.  Louis  Sanitary  Company. 
The  reduction  plant  at  Vincennes,  Ind.,  built  in  1902,  is  perhaps  the 
first  one  which  is  distinctively  of  this  type.  The  Wiselogel  process  is 
described  as  follows  by  the  Secretary  of  a  Boston  Company  organized 
to  promote  it : 

"  Our  apparatus  consists  of  a  self-contained  rendering  tank  and  drier 
combined.  It  is  a  steam-jacketed  cylinder  of  cast  iron,  5  ft.  internal  diameter 
and  12  or  more  feet  long,  provided  with  a  shaft  and  reel  to  stir  the  mass  within. 
The  material  to  be  reduced  is  fed  in  at  the  top  of  the  tank,  to  which  an  air  or 
vacuum  pump  is  attached,  and,  being  constantly  in  motion,  produces  an 
inward  draft  while  the  tank  is  open,  thus  preventing  any  odors  from  escaping. 

"  When  the  tank  is  filled,  the  door  is  closed  and  clamped.  Steam  is 
admitted  and  the  reel  is  set  in  motion,  the  air  pump  and  condenser  stiU  being 
in  operation.  The  water,  together  with  the  grease,  assembles  in  the  bottom  of 
the  machine,  and  is  pumped  into  the  cooling  tank,  where  the  grease  is  drawn 
off  into  barrels  and  is  ready  for  market.  The  water  is  led  off  as  a  harmless 
effluent  into  the  sewer.  Relieved  of  the  water  and  grease,  the  residuum  is 
dried  in  the  same  machine,  and,  during  the  entire  process,  by  the  aid  of  the 
vacuum  pump,  all  vapors  and  gases  are  drawn  from  the  machine  and  forced 
through  a  condenser  and  separator  where  the  vapors  are  condensed  and  the 
gases  diverted  to  a  specially  constructed  consumer.  When  the  residuum  or 
tankage  is  thoroughly  dried,  it  is  discharged  from  the  machine  as  a  commercial 
fertilizer.     This  whole  operation  consumes  about  eight  hours'  time. 

"  The  material  suffers  no  exposure  from  the  time  it  is  fed  in  at  the  top  until 
it  is  discharged,  a  dry  and  odorless  product,  ready  for  shipment." 

The  Vincennes  plant  was  destroyed  by  fire  in  1908  and  not  rebuilt. 

7.  Edson. — The  Edson  Reduction  Machinery  Company,  of  Cleve- 
land, had  previously  developed  a  process  for  treating  fish  waste 
material  in  a  sanitary  manner,  and  built  in  Detroit  works  for  garbage 
treatment  in  hermetically  sealed  digesters,  driers,  and  extractors. 
In  1907,  after  a  year's  operation,  the  works  were  closed,  as  they 
would  not  fulfill  the  terms  of  the  contract. 

In  1906  the  Edson  process  combined  with  the  Chamberlain  process 
was  introduced  at  Cleveland,  and  put  in  practice  at  the  reduction 
plant  at  Willow.  It  was  the  first  plant  owned  and  operated  by  a  city, 
and  the  works  have  been  gradually  improved. 

The  garbage  is  first  cooked  with  steam,  under  70  lb.  pressure,  in 


452    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


24  digesters,  each  having  a  capacity  of  10  tons  per  day,  for  six  to  eight 
hours,  and  then  the  grease  and  water  are  forced  by  the  steam  pressure 
into  setthng  tanks  from  which  the  grease  is  skimmed  off  and  barreled. 
The  soHds  from  the  digesters  are  conveyed  to  steam- jacketed  driers, 
fitted  with  revolving  paddles,  and  then  dried  for  from  six  to  eight  hours. 
The  dried  material  is  discharged  into  percolators,  in  which  the  grease 
is  extracted  by  a  naphtha  solvent.  The  remaining  solids  are  dried, 
screened,  crushed,  and  made  up  into  a  marketable  tankage.  The 
plant  is  about  9J  miles  from  the  City  Hall,  and  is  operated  successfully. 
Fig.  112  is  a  diagram  showing  the  recovery  of  grease  and  tankage. 
The  successful  development  of  this  first  municipal  reduction  plant 


15.0 


.10.0 


5.0 


n 

'~ 

~ 

I 

J 

A 

N, 

/\ 

[ 

\ 

1 

/ 

s 

/ 

k 

/ 

\ 

> 

i 

J 

Y 

/ 

\ 

, 

\ 

/ 

\ 

>>«, 

/ 

\ 

R 

\ 

> 

LJ 

k 

1 

\ 

/ 

^ 

f 

ps 

A 

^ 

\ 

A 

\ 

r 

s 

r— J 

LJ 

J 

(~> 

:f^ 

\ 

/\ 

\ 

/ 

\ 

( 

Th 

\ 

r 

\ 

\"\ 

\ 

/ 

■>-< 

k 

/ 

rl 

^-1 

p. 

r 

)*^ 

r 

Y 

**( 

p_ 

[  -< 

f' 

N 

L 

1 

\..J^- 

-K 

M 

r 

\.^ 

r*^ 

^ 

,^ 

f" 

-^^ 

1 

L 

_ 



15o0 


10.0 


a  jJ  S    i  &  S  i  g'  «•  tJ  §'  S   a  -S  «    n  o  a  -5  S'  f  u'   S   S  g  -g 


1910  1917  1918 

Fig.  112. — Monthly  Recovery  of  Grease  and  Tankage,  Cleveland  Reduction 

Plant. 


was  due  to  the  efficient  and  devoted  efforts  of  Mr.  W.  J.  Springborn, 
President  of  the  Board  of  PubHc  Service. 

Similar  processes  have  been  developed  also  by  Flinn,  Wheelright, 
and  others.  More  extended  accounts  of  these  processes  are  given  by 
Morse.* 

8.  Cobwell. — The  most  recent  development  in  garbage  reduction 
is  known  as  the  "  Cobwell  "  process,  invented  by  Mr.  Raymond  Wells. 
It  has  been  adopted  at  Los  Angeles,  Rochester,  and  Staten  Island, 
N.  Y.,  and  was  used  at  the  Panama  Pacific  Exposition.  The  garbage, 
after  being  placed  in  the  reducer,  a  round,  flat-bottomed,  covered 
tank  having  a  diameter  of  at  least  twice  its  height,  is  first  flooded 
with  naphtha  and  then  cooked  in  these  air-tight,  steam-jacketed  tanks, 
under  a  pressure  of  about  85  lb.  per  square  inch.  Agitator  arms  in  the 
tanks  keep  the  material  in  motion.  The  temperature  of  the  garbage 
and  gasoline  must  be  maintained  at  less  than  200°  Fahr.,  which  causes 

*"  The  Collection  and  Disposal  of  Municipal  Waste,"  First  Edition. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 


453 


the  water  to  be  carried  off  with  the  vaporized  gasoline.  After  the 
garbage  is  dry,  the  temperature  in  the  tank  rises,  thus  indicating  when 
the  removal  of  the  moisture  is  complete.  The  dried  garbage  is  then 
washed  several  times  with  gasoline,  to  extract  the  grease  completely. 
Finally,  live  steam  is  injected  for  a  short  time  into  the  resulting  tank- 
age, which  is  thereby  finally  dried.  After  crushing  and  screening  it 
is  ready  for  sale.  The  process,  as  followed  at  New  York,  is  described 
in  detail  later  in  this  chapter. 

9.  Chicago's  Process. — Garbage  reduction  in  Chicago  is  based  on 
the  use  of  so-called  "  direct-indirect "  heat  driers,  and  has  been 
developed  largely  by  Col.  H.  A.  Allen.    The  garbage  is  first  run  through 

Fermented  Liquor  Storage 

Alcohol  Yapor 


Fig.  113. — Experimental  Alcohol  Equipment  at  Garbage  Reduction  Plant, 

Columbus,  Ohio. 


crushers,  to  break  up  large  material,  thus  permitting  more  efficient 
drying.  The  crushed  material  is  then  fed  to  driers,  which  are  built 
with  double  shells,  the  inner  one  being  fitted  with  perforated  lugs  for 
stirring  the  garbage.  Hot  air  passes  through  the  annular  space,  from 
which  a  part  escapes  into  the  garbage  through  the  perforations  in 
the  lugs.  The  dried  material  is  then  percolated  for  the  recovery  of 
grease,  and  the  tankage  is  dried,  screened,  milled,  and  prepared  for 
the  market.  Special  stacks  are  provided  for  cleaning  the  drier  gases. 
10.  Miscellaneous  Processes. — Experiments  were  made  in  Colum- 
bus (1916-17),  on  the  recovery  of  alcohol  from  garbage  by  a  process 
invented  by  Dr.  J.  J.  Morgan,  of  Chicago.  The  experimental  plant 
is  shown  in  Fig.  113.  The  garbage  is  first  cooked  in  a  digester,  with 
from  2  to  4%  of  60°  sulphuric  acid  under  60  lb.  pressure,  for  about  two 
hours,  after  which  it  is  partly  neutralized  and  then  discharged  into 


454     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


a  screw  press.  The  liquor  from  the  press  flows  to  a  neutralizing  tank, 
and  the  solids  are  dried,  percolated  for  grease  recovery,  and  then 
converted  into  tankage.  In  the  neutralizing  tank  the  grease  is  first 
separated  from  the  liquor,  and  the  latter  is  then  treated  with  lime, 
which  forms  a  precipitate.  This  settles  out  and  is  made  into  tankage. 
The  neutralized  liquid  is  then  cooled  and  fermented  with  yeast  for 
from  thirty-six  to  seventy-two  hours.  Finally,  the  fermented  liquor 
is  heated  and  distilled  for  the  recovery  of  alcohol. 

From  2000  lb.  of  selected  garbage  Dr.  Morgan  obtained  about  50 
lb.  of  alcohol  in  Chicago  and  32  lb.  in  Columbus.  In  the  latter  city 
it  was  estimated  by  him  in  1918  that  the  expense  of  extracting  alcohol 
from  1  ton  of  garbage  would  be  about  $2.00,  and  that  about  25%  of 
dried  garbage,  or  about  5%  of  green  garbage,  could  be  converted  into 
alcohol. 

A  summary  of  the  results  of  the  Morgan  process,  based  on  the 
experimental  plant  data,  as  compared  with  the  results  of  the  regular 
Columbus  process,  is  shown  in  Table  129.  The  experiments  were 
made  by  Messrs.  C.  P.  Hoover  and  W.  L.  Mehch,  for  Mr.  T.  D. 
Banks,  Superintendent  of  the  garbage  reduction  works  at  Columbus. 
This  process  has  not  as  yet  been  conducted  on  a  scale  of  suflScient  size 
to  determine  its  commercial  value. 

TABLE  129.^CoMPARATiVE  Data  of  Garbage  Reduction 

AND   Morgan  Process  of  Obtaining  Alcohol, 

at  Columbus  Reduction  Plant 


Item 

Reduction  process 

Morgan  process 

Percentage  of  grease  from  garbage .  .  . 
Percentage  of  tankage  from  garbage.. 
Gallons  of  90%  alcohol  per  ton  of  gar- 
bage    

3.33 

8.22 

0.0 

3.63 
2.01 
4.94 

3.11 
8.10 

5.8 

3.26 
2.16 
4.46 

Percentages  in  tankage: 
Ammonia  (NH3) 

Potash  (K2O)    

Tricalcium  phosphate  (Ca3(P04)2).  • 

Dr.  Horst,  of  Chicago,  has  been  experimenting  with  a  chemical 
process  for  converting  the  cellulose  of  the  garbage  into  dextrin  or 
dextrose,  but  no  useful  data  have  yet  been  developed. 

The  Pan-American  Feed  Milling  Company,  of  Kansas  City, 
Mo.,  has  been  experimenting  with  the  production  of  a  stock  food 
from  garbage,  but,  as  yet,  no  plant  has  been  put  into  operation. 
However,  an  agreement  has  been  made  (1920),  between  this  company 
and  the  Toledo  Disposal  Company,  whereby  an  experimental  plant 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  455 

for  making  stock  food  is  to  l)e  built  adjoining  the  reduction  works. 
The  results  of  operation  should  be  available  during  1921. 

D.  PRODUCTS 

1.  Grease. — Garbage  grease  is  a  low-grade  fat,  used  chiefly  for 
manufacturing  red  oil,  glycerines,  and  soaps. 

Vegetable  and  animal  oils  are  called  "  saponifiable  "  oils,  to  dis- 
tinguish them  from  the  mineral  and  essential  oils.  The  saponifiable 
oils  differ  from  other  oils  in  their  chemical  composition,  being  com- 
pounds of  organic  acids  with  substances  of  the  alcohol  group.  The 
most  frequent  representative  of  the  alcohol  group  found  in  saponifiable 
oils  is  glycerine. 

The  composition  of  garbage  grease  is,  of  course,  variable,  but 
commonly  consists  of  stearic,  oleic,  palmitic,  and  other  fatty  acids 
combined  with  glycerine  in  varying  proportions. 

These  fats  are  found  in  oil  seeds  of  plants  and  in  animals.  Gar- 
bage grease  will  contain,  not  only  vegetable  and  terrestrial-animal  oils, 
but  also  marine-animal  oils.  Stearin  and  palmitin  have  melting 
points  of  about  160°  and  150°  Fahr.,  respectively.  Olein  is  softer, 
with  a  melting  point  of  25°  Fahr.  The  melting  point  of  the  grease 
depends  on  the  relative  proportions  of  the  three  fats  in  the  mixture. 

In  the  industries,  the  methods  of  extracting  oil  may  be  grouped 
under  three  heads:  (1)  by  rendering,  that  is,  by  boiling  out  with  water; 
(2)  by  pressing;  and  (3)  by  using  solvents.  The  vegetable  oils  are 
obtained  bycrushing  and  then  pressing  the  crushed  material  or  treating 
it  with  a  solvent.  Thorp  *  states  that  extraction  with  a  solvent 
"  gives  a  larger  yield  of  oil,  comparatively  free  from  gelatinous  matter, 
but  some  resins  and  coloring  matter  may  be  dissolved,  thus  con- 
taminating it If  the  extraction  is  carried  too  far,  the  residue 

of  crushed  seed  pulp  has  less  value  as  animal  food  and  is  chiefly  used 
as  fertilizer  or  fuel."  The  press-cake  from  many  vegetable  oils  is  val- 
uable as  cattle  food,  because  of  the  oil  and  proteids  contained  therein. 

Animal  oils  and  fats  can  be  extracted  by  rendering,  i.e.,  eit^her  by 
boiling  with  water  to  which  a  small  quantity  of  sulphuric  acid  is  added 
to  promote  the  breaking  up  of  the  cell  walls  and  thus  liberating  the  oil; 
or  by  cooking  in  large  digesters  in  direct  contact  with  steam  under 
pressure.  As  these  oils  are  contained  in  animal  cells,  which  putrefy 
soon  after  the  animal  is  killed,  the  rendering  must  be  done  within  a 
very  short  time,  or  the  fat  will  become  rancid  and  have  a  bad  odor. 

Garbage  grease  as  ordinarily  prepared  for  the  market  is  a  brown- 
colored  soft  fat.    The  usual  tests  for  saponifiable  fats  should  be  applied, 

*  "  Outlines  of  Industrial  Chemistry." 


456     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


including  those  for  hardness,  rancidity,  and  the  saponification  value. 
The  test  is  a  good  indication  of  the  purity  of  the  grease.  The  saponi- 
fication value  is  expressed  by  the  number  of  milligrams  of  potassium 
hydroxide  needed  to  saponifj^  one  gram  of  the  oil,  or,  in  other  words, 
to  neutralize  the  fatty  acids.  This  value  indicates  the  quality  of  the 
grease  for  soap  making.  A  higher  saponification  value  than  necessary 
indicates  that  more  alkali  is  required  for  the  manufacture  of  the  soap. 
In  most  oils  and  fats  this  value  is  about  193;  that  of  garbage  grease  is 
usually  about  188.  Grease  with  higher  values  than  these  is  not 
desirable  for  soap  and  candle  making.  For  other  special  tests  of  the 
value  of  grease,  the  reader  is  referred  to  text  books  on  that  subject. 

Table  130  gives  the  average  analyses  of  grease  at  the  Columbus 
plant. 

TABLE  130. — ^AvERAGE  Percentages  op  Impurities  in  Grease 
AT  Columbus  Reduction  Plant 

Percentages  by  weight 


Year 

Moisture 

Impurities 

Unsaponifiable 
matter 

Free  fatty 
acids 

1911 
1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 

2.69 

1.97 

2.53 

1.52 

1.56 

1.11 

1.025 

1.96 

2.29 

0.244 

0.205 

0.125 

0.131 

0.196 

0.46 

0.732 

0.55 

0.52 

2.44 
2.99 

2.84 

2.91 

3.37 

3.54 

2.830 

4.57 

4.51 

* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

27.512 

50.02 

* 

*  Not  reported 

The  following  observations  can  be  made  quickly,  and  are  useful 
in  judging  the  value  of  a  grease: 

a.  The  turbidity,  which  indicates  the  presence  of  water  or  of  oils  which  mix 
imperfectly; 

b.  The  quantity  of  sediment; 

c.  The  color; 

d.  The  fluorescence  or  "  bloom,"  which  indicates  the  presence  of  mineral 
oUs; 

e.  The  odor,  especially  when  warmed,  which,  for  instance,  may  be  fishy  or 
rancid,  if  the  grease  is  not  thoroughly  stable; 

/.  The  taste; 

g.  The  viscosity,  which  may  be  judged  by  suddenly  inverting  a  test-tube 
or  bottle  partly  filled  with  the  oil. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 


457 


On  account  of  the  presence  of  sediment  and  of  some  odor,  garbage 
grease  is  frequently  used  for  making  cheap  toilet  soap,  in  which  the 
impurities  are  obscured  by  the  color  and  perfume  in  the  soap.  Con- 
tracts for  the  purchase  of  garbage  grease  generally  limit  the  percentage 
of  moisture  and  the  unsaponifiable  matter  and  impurities  to  3%. 

Fig.  114  is  a  diagram  showing  the  monthly  percentage  recovery  of 
grease  at  the  reduction  works  in  Washington,  Cincinnati,  Detroit, 
Cleveland,  and  Chicago. 


■~ 

7 

^ 

N 

f 

1 

\ 

\ 

f 

•^ 

/ 

\ 

f 

\^ 

V:  ^ 

\ 

/ 

V" 

I 

\ 

V 

J 

i 

u 

\ 

/ 

\k 

V 

V 

s, 

o 

bg 

,. 

>«- 

^ 

\^o 

^ 

.^< 

B 

"> 

V 

\ 

"^ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

V 

s^ 

Oc 

'rjj 

\ 

^ 

;> 

y 

■o. 

»«i 

i^ 

u 

kV 

/^ 

■.., 

/ 

/ 

p:  ^ 

>.~ 

^ 

0) 

■Q 

'V 

•9| 

i^ 

^^ 

^ 

r 

CD 

/ 

S 

■^. 

■s^ 

& 

/ 

\^ 

b- 

^ 

/ 

\ 

"<% 

/ 

-> 

/ 

S, 

1 

C/„ 

\ 

o- 

- 

r* 

\ 

1 

>: 

c^ 

\ 

.<? 

y 

^ 

f- 

/ 

r 

•s 

Y 

'■' 

■i^" 

% 

>/ 

^f 

/ 

, 

\ 

Y 

> 

>) 

»s 

1 

cilftS 

^■^ 

/ 

\ 

JJ 

* 

•.r 

=.?> 

^<.^^' 

< 

0- 

~\ 

hr 

-</ 

S 

,_ 

o-;. 

-» 

> 

' 

V. 

^^ 

/ 

,y 

'-' 

■». 

-^ 

"v 

. 

y 

"■ 

'N 

^ 

1 

1 

c 

i 

C 

a 

—> 

CO 

c 
< 

, 

CB 

3 

3 

t 

•< 

3 

C 

J 
) 

> 
O 

o 

Q 

(3 

Fig.  114. — Average  Monthly  Percentage  Recovery  of  Grease  from  Garbage 
in  Several  American  Cities. 

2.  Solvents. — The  extraction  of  garbage  grease  by  a  solvent 
requires  the  use  of  one  that  is  volatile.  Carbon  bisulphide  v/as  first 
used  by  Mr.  Jesse  Fisher,  in  England,  in  1843.  As  at  present  man- 
ufactured, this  chemical  is  comparatively  cheap,  and,  as  it  is  heavier 
than  water,  it  has  certain  advantages  on  account  of  storage;  but  its 
bad  physiological  effects  on  workmen,  and  the  chemical  action  of 
impure  carbon  bisulphide  on  iron,  have  practically  prevented  its  use. 
Carbon  tetrachloride  could  be  used,  having  the  advantages  of  being 
non-inflammable  and  also  heavier  than  water;  but  it  is  too  expensive. 


458     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Petroleum  naphtha  is  the  solvent  most  frequently  used  at  present. 
It  is  a  product  obtained  by  distillation  from  crude  petroleum,  and  has 
a  specific  gravity  of  from  0.741  to  0.745.  Under  atmospheric  pressure 
it  vaporizes  at  from  160  to  210°  Fahr.  It  is  inflammable  and  explo- 
sive, and,  under  atmospheric  pressure,  has  a  boiling  point  of  160  to 
210°  Fahr.  Petroleum  naphtha  is  a  mixture  of  hydrocarbons,  and 
should  be  distinguished  from  so-called  "  solvent  naphtha  "  or  benzine 
derived  from  coal  tar.  Gasoline  may  also  be  used,  but  it  is  more 
expensive. 

3.  Tankage. — Tankage  is  ordinarily  sold  as  a  base  or  filler  for 
artificial  fertilizers.  Its  selling  price  is  determined  by  its  content  of 
so-called  "  units  "  of  ammonia,  bone  phosphate  ox  lime,  and  potash. 
A  unit  of  ammonia,  for  instance,  is  1%  of  ammonia  per  ton  of  tankage, 
or  20  lb.  A  typical  bill  from  a  garbage  reduction  plant  to  a  pur- 
chaser of  tankage  would  be  made  up  about  as  follows : 

Car  number Shipped (Date)  ,   containing  38.5  tons  of 

tankage  valued  as  follows,  from  analysis: 

Ammonia,  3.40%  @  12.50 $8 .  50 

Bone  phosphate  of  lime,  6.50%  @  $0.10 0.65 

Potash,  0.75%  @  $0.70 0. 53 


Value  per  ton $9 .  68 

38.5  tons  @  $9.68 $372.68 

The  percentage  of  moisture  in  tankage  should  be  kept  below  ten. 
Methods  of  analyzing  garbage  or  tankage  for  the  above  substances  are 
giA'en  in  Chapter  I;  reference  should  also  be  made  to  the  reports  of 
the  Committee  on  Fats  and  Greases,  of  the  American  Chemical 
Society.  Marketable  fertilizers  contain  from  2  to  8%  of  ammonia, 
from  6  to  10%  of  bone  phosphate  of  lime,  and  from  4  to  10%  of  potash, 
the  remaining  portion  being  a  filler.  The  composition  of  the  tankage 
should  be  varied  to  suit  each  particular  soil.  Before  tankage  can  be 
percolated  advantageously  with  a  solvent,  it  should  contain  at  least 
10%  of  grease. 

Table  131  gives  the  average  analyses  of  tankage  at  the  Columbus 
plant. 

The  fineness  of  the  tankage  is  also  a  quality  affecting  its  value. 
Tankage  is  sold  either  ground  or  unground,  and  is  often  sifted  to  reduce 
it  to  the  proper  degree  of  fineness. 

In  some  reduction  processes,  the  water  from  the  separating  tanks 
has  been  evaporated  to  a  syrup  (stick),  to  be  added  to  the  tankage 
before  it  is  completely  dried  and  finished.  The  tank- water  contains  a 
comparatively  large  percentage  of  fertilizing  elements,  and  thus  may 
enrich  the  tankage.     It  also  is  somewhat   gritty,  which  adds  to  its 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 


459 


value,  as  it  renders  the  tankage  less  fluffy  and  light;    but  the  treat- 
ment of  these  waters  is  seldom  economical. 

TABLE  131. — ^AvERAGE  Percentages  of  Certain  Components 
OF  Tankage  at  Columbus  Reduction  Plant 


i*ercentages  bj 

'  weight 

Year 

Moisture 

Grease 

Ammonia 

Pota.sh 

Tricalcium 
phosphate 

1911 

10.7 

10.7 

3.35 

0.90 

5.68 

1912 

10.2 

2.0 

3.50 

1.03 

7.16 

1913 

8.0 

1.8 

3.56 

0.99 

7.35 

1914 

3.1 

1.2 

3.58 

0.78 

8.08 

1915 

3.37 

2.9 

3.62 

1.12 

6.83 

1916 

2.85 

3.3 

3.89 

1.39 

7.99 

1917 

2.76 

4.26 

3.86 

1.06 

7.56 

1918 

3.39 

3.77 

1.08 

7.94 

1919 

Tankage  s 

old  at  flat  r 

ate  on  anal 

ysis  guaran 

teed 

thus: 

3.50 

1.00 

7.39 

4.  Wastes. — The  wastes  from  the  reduction  process  are  solid, 
liquid,  and  gaseous.  All  are  capable  of  creating  nuisances,  chiefly 
the  gases.  The  satisfactory  operation  of  a  reduction  plant  depends 
very  largely  on  the  method  of  handling  these  wastes.  The  solid 
wastes,  such  as  rubbish,  tin  cans,  etc.,  are  the  least  objectionable. 
They  are  called  "  tailings,"  and  can  be  disposed  of  like  similar 
solid  refuse. 

The  liquid  wastes,  ordinarily,  are  not  large  in  quantity,  and  their 
proper  disposal  is  not  diflficult.  They  are  the  floor  washings,  waste 
tank  liquors,  drippings  from  the  presses,  etc.,  and  contain  some  grease 
and  some  ammonia.  Analyses  of  the  waste  liquids  from  the  plant  of 
the  Chicago  Reduction  Company  are  shown  in  Table  132. 

In  plants  where  the  tank  liquor  is  evaporated  and  the  syrup 
added  to  the  tankage,  the  quantity  of  liquid  waste  will  be  less.  Where 
plants  are  near  a  large  body  of  water  or  a  system  of  sewers,  the  waste 
liquids  can  be  discharged  directly  without  much  treatment.  A 
properly  designed  catch-basin  should  be  built  to  retain  both  the  heavy 
settling  solids  and  the  lighter  floating  particles.  If  the  plant  is 
situated  on  a  small  stream  in  which  the  waste  liquids  would  create 
nuisances,  more  complete  purification  must  be  provided.  Special 
designs,  similar  to  sewage  treatment  works,  are  required. 

A  satisfactory  disposal  of  the  waste  gases  is  more  difficult,  owing  to 
the  necessity  of  confining  them.     They  contain  volatile  organic  com- 


460     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


pounds,  such  as  ammonia,  phosphine,  acetic  acid,  carbon  dioxide, 
sulphur  compounds,  and  partly  burned  carbohydrates,  which  create 
odors  and  are  nuisances  when  discharged  into  the  air  near  human 
habitations.  During  the  last  few  years,  methods  of  trapping  and 
confining  these  gases  have  been  greatly  improved,  and  several  processes 
have  been  developed  for  their  final  purification,  or,  more  correctly, 
their  washing  and  burning. 

TABLE  132. — ^Chemical  Analyses  op  Waste  Liquids. 
Chicago  Reduction  Plant.     July  25,  1911 

(Coui-tesy  of  The  Sanitary  District  of  Chicago) 
Results  in  parts  per  million 


Source  of 
sample 

Suspended  Matter 

Oxygen  Consumed 

NiTEOGEN 

Chlo- 
rine 

Alka- 
linity 

Total 

Vola- 
tile 

Fixed 

Total 

By 

soluble 
matter 

By 

sus- 
pend- 
ed 
matter 

Organ- 
ic ni- 
trogen 

Free 
ammo- 
nia 

Condenser 
water       from 
naphtha  plant 

132 

96 

36 

53 

9.5 

3.0 

31 

130 

Water       from 
washing  tower 
for  waste  gases 

88 

76 

12 

184 

10.0 

6.8 

33 

82 

Drain     from 
garbage  pile 

4280 

4000 

280 

8850 

8790 

60 

1407 

1.2 

Ex- 
cessive 

2500 

If  the  waste  gases  are  carried  to  a  wet  well,  those  which  are  solu- 
ble will  be  dissolved  and  may  be  discharged  into  the  sewer.  The 
insoluble  gases  may  be  passed  through  a  hot  fire  and  deodorized  by 
oxidation.  If  the  gases  are  led  to  a  high  tower,  from  the  top  of  which  a 
fine  spray  of  water  is  continually  falling,  some  are  dissolved  when 
passing  up  the  tower  and  much  of  the  odor  is  removed.  The  insoluble 
gases,  however,  escape  at  the  top.  By  heating,  some  of  the  insoluble 
sulphur  compounds  are  changed  to  soluble  sulphur  dioxide,  which 
can  be  removed  by  washing. 

Insufficient  attention  to  waste  gases  has  been  chiefly  responsible 
for  the  objections  to  the  reduction  system. 

5.  Odors. — Objectionable  odors  at  reduction  works  are  due, 
partly  to  the  garbage  when  it  is  stored  temporarily  at  the  plant  until 
treated,  partly  to  the  fumes  escaping  into  the  open  during  the  treat- 
ment, partly  to  the  exposed  tankage,  and  partly  to  the  exposed  liquids 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  461 

discharged  from  the  digesters  and  grease-separating  tanks.  The 
intensity  or  quantity  of  odor  depends  on  the  details  of  the  process. 
Direct-heat  driers,  particularly,  produce  gases  in  quantities  which  are 
difficult  to  control. 

To  prevent  the  creation  and  diffusion  of  these  objectionable  odors, 
the  works,  as  a  first  requirement,  should  be  kept  scrupulously  clean. 
The  operation  should  be  arranged  so  that  the  freshly  delivered  garbage 
can  be  placed  in  the  digesters  at  once,  or  within  a  very  short  time,  and 
not  left  exposed  in  the  open  air  to  become  foul. 

Gases  and  vapors  arising  from  digesters,  as  well  as  from  presses, 
naphtha  tanks,  driers,  and  wherever  odors  from  the  cooked  garbage 
may  be  generated,  should  be  confined  and  discharged  into  pipes  of 
diameters  properly  proportioned  to  carry  away  completely  all  odorous 
air  ascending  from  each  source.  The  draft  into  the  hoods  and  the  cir- 
culation through  the  pipes  is  best  effected  by  a  blower  of  ample 
capacity. 

The  odorous  air  thus  collected  from  all  places  where  it  is  formed 
should  be  delivered  to  proper  places  for  a  careful  treatment.  One  such 
place  may  be  below  the  grates  of  the  furnaces  at  the  plant,  where  the 
foul  gases  can  be  passed  through  the  fires  by  forced  draft  and  be  burned 
by  intense  heat.  If  the  quantity  of  this  foul  air  is  too  great  for  the 
regular  furnaces,  an  additional  special  furnace  should  be  built  to 
burn  the  excess,  as  the  complete  destruction  of  this  foul  air  is 
generally  imperative;  or,  it  may  be  discharged  into  the  rear  pass  of 
the  boilers,  and  this  may  be  sufficient  to  eliminate  its  objectionable 
character.  Washing  with  water,  and  a  proper  control  of  the  furnace 
temperature,  may  also  sometimes  be  sufficient.  Passing  the  foul  air 
through  a  disinfecting  chamber  is  generally  less  effective  and  more 
costly. 

Practically  all  the  objections  which  have  been  made  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  garbage  reduction  works  in  the  United  States  have  been 
caused  simply  by  the  fact  that  the  foul  odors  naturally  emanating 
from  them  have  not  been  suppressed  by  efficient  means. 

A  noticeable  improvement  of  the  odor  in  a  reduction  plant  may 
be  gained  by  occasionally  blowing  compressed  pure  air  from  a  jet  (air 
washing)  against  the  interior  walls  of  the  building,  the  surfaces  of  all 
apparatus  within  it,  and  even  against  the  clothing  of  the  attendants, 
which  otherwise  has  been  known  to  retain  the  odors  for  many  hours. 
The  use,  also,  of  ozone  has  been  proposed,  but  the  additional  expense 
of  this  material  is  rarely  justified. 

At  the  Barren  Island  reduction  plant,  Osborn  and  Klein  made  some 
investigations,  on  the  elimination  of  odors,  for  the  Committee  on 
Street  Cleaning  of  the  Board  of   Estimate  and  Apportionment    of 


462     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

New  York  City,  in  1915.     The  result  of  their  work  is  summarized 
below: 

It  was  found  that  the  odors  from,  the  reduction  plant  came  from  the 
following  sources: 

1.  The  crude  garbage  delivered  at  the  plant; 

2.  The  tankage  stored  at  the  plant; 

3.  The  vapors  given  off  from  hot  materials  during  the  process,  when  they 

are  exposed  to  the  air; 

4.  The  vapors  given  off  by  the  grease  settling  basins; 

5.  Odors  given  off  from  materials  which  sour  or  ferment  and  which 

accumulate  when  the  plant  is  not  kept  in  a  cleanly  condition; 

6.  Leaks  in  apparatus  under  pressure,  where  gases  and  vapors  escape  and 

so  are  not  confined  and  deodorized; 

7.  The  gases  vented  from  the  tops  of  the  digesters; 

8.  Gases  given  off  from  the  receiving  tanks  below  the  digesters  when  the 

latter  are  discharged; 

9.  The  gases  from  the  driers; 

10.  The  dust  in  the  drier  gases. 

The  first  six  of  these  sources  are  considered  as  producing  more  or 
less  local  odors  which  could  be  controlled  by  proper  upkeep,  good  ven- 
tilation, and  the  maintenance  of  the  apparatus  in  a  clean  condition. 
Comments  on  the  last  four  sources  listed  were  made  as  follows : 

7.  The  gases  vented  from  the  tops  of  the  digesters  are  the  most  permeating 
odors  from  the  reduction  process.  The  volume  is  not  so  great  as  from  the 
driers,  and  with  proper  treatment  can  be  completely  deodorized. 

8.  The  gases  given  off  from  the  receiving  tanks,  except  for  the  air  dis- 
placed, consist  mostly  of  steam  vapor,  and  can  be  condensed. 

9.  The  gases  from  the  driers  are  not  as  permeating  as  the  digester  gases, 
but,  with  direct-heat  driers,  the  volume  is  large.  These  gases  can  be  deo- 
dorized if  properly  and  sufficiently  treated. 

10.  The  dust  Li  the  drier  gases  is  carried  in  suspension.  A  large  part  can 
be  eliminated  by  passing  through  a  dust  chamber,  and  all  can  be  removed  by 
scrubbing. 

It  is  thus  repeatedly  reported  that  the  odors  from  the  reduction 
process,  causing  nuisance  to  the  surrounding  territory,  come  chiefly 
from  two  sources,  viz.,  the  gases  vented  and  escaping  from  the 
digesters  and  driers.  The  greatest  source  of  odors  is  from  the  direct- 
heat  driers. 

Regarding  the  digester  gases,  it  was  found  that  they  contained 
alcohols,  acetic  acid,  some  volatile  fatty  acids,  carbon  dioxide,  some 
of  the  essential  oils,  and  sulphur  compounds.  There  were  also 
substances  carried  over  mechanically  by  the  steam.  In  solution 
there  was  0.0067%  mineral  and  0.0035%  organic   matter:   in  suspen- 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 


463 


sion,  0.0016%  mineral  and  0.0106%  organic  matter.  The  water  used 
for  absorbing  these  gases  sometimes  had  considerable  odor,  removable, 
however,  by  small  quantities  of  chloride  of  lime.  It  was  also  found 
that  heating  the  gases  to  from  700  to  800°  removed  all  stinking  odor. 
Table  133  shows  the  effect  of  heating  on  the  odor  of  digester  gases, 
according  to  observations  made  in  Chicago. 

TABLE  133. — Effect  of  Heating  on  the  Odor  of  Dicester  Vent  Gases 


Temperature  in 

Temperature  of 

center  of 

gases,  in 

furnace, 

degrees. 

Nature  of  odor 

in  degrees, 

Fahrenheit, 

Fahrenheit, 

at  point  where 
odor  was  noted 

40-350 

40-118 

Sweet,  slightly  nauseating,  slightly  irritating 

450 

144 

Sweet;  slightly  acrid;  slightly  irritating 

550 

169 

Not  so  sweet;   acrid;  slightly  irritating 

750 

176 

No  sweetness;  more  acid  and  irritating 

850 

194 

Acid;  irritating;  sulphur  dioxide  odor 

950 

201 

Acrid;  irritating;  sulphur  dioxide  odor 

1050 

205 

More  acrid;  irritating;  sulphur  diox'de  odor 
very  distinct 

1150 

230 

Acrid;  irritating;  sulphur  dioxide  odor  very 
distinct 

1200 

230 

Acrid;  irritating;  sulphur  dioxide  odor  very 
distinct 

Regarding  the  drier  gas,  it  was  found  that  the  odor  could  be  com- 
pletely eliminated  by  heating  to  a  temperature  of  1850°  Fahr.,  and 
that  all  odor  was  removed  by  bubbling  the  gases  through  a  quantity 
of  water  containing  a  calcium  hypochlorite  solution  having  about 
l/lOOO  part  available  chlorine. 

Tests  were  also  made  on  the  dilution  of  drier  gases  with  air,  with 
the  following  result : 


Rate  op  Flow,  in  Cubic  Feet  per 
Minute 

Dilution  of  drier 
gas  to  air 

Intensity  of  drier 
gas  odor  in  mixture 

Drier  gas 

Air 

0.6 
0.2 
0.031 

12 
12 
12 

1  :  20 
1  :  60 
1  :  400 

Very  strong 

Strong 

Distinct 

464    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  results  show  that  no  reasonable  amount  of  dilution  with  air 
is  effective  in  causing  the  drier  gas  odor  to  become  negligible. 

As  a  result  of  these  studies  and  investigations,  the  following  recom- 
mendations were  presented : 

1 .  That  immediate  changes  be  made  in  the  treatment  of  the  insoluble  gases 
vented  from  digesters  through  condensers,  so  as  to  deodorize  them  entirely,  as 
the  present  practice  of  discharging  into  the  boiler  furnace  does  not  deodorize 
them. 

2.  That  special  attention  be  given  to  keeping  all  tanks  containing  digested 
garbage,  or  garbage  in  the  process  of  digestion,  free  from  leaks,  and  that  equip- 
ment not  absolutely  free  from  leaks  when  under  pressure  be  kept  out  of  service 
until  repairs  are  made. 

3.  That  gases  shall  not  be  permitted  to  escape  at  the  time  of  opening 
digesters. 

4.  That  special  attention  be  given  to  all  condensers  to  insure  sufficient 
water  being  used,  and  at  a  temperature  that  will  condense  all  the  steam  and 
take  up  all  sohible  gases. 

5.  That  the  present  drier  plant  be  constructed  or  changed  so  as  to  prevent 
leakage  and  reduce  the  volume  of  gases  to  be  treated. 

6.  That  all  gases  given  off  from  the  driers  shall  be  scrubbed  and  deodorized 
thoroughly  before  being  allowed  to  escape  to  the  atmosphere. 

7.  That  the  scrubber  now  installed  be  replaced  or  reconstructed,  to  enable 
the  volume  of  gas  passing  through  it  to  be  washed  or  scrubbed  thoroughly. 

8.  That  the  water  supply  at  the  plant  be  increased,  and,  where  necessary," 
pumps  be  duplicated  to  insure  sufficient  water  for  condensing  and  scrubbing 
of  gases  at  all  times. 

9.  That  the  pumps  be  of  a  type  that  will  insure  the  required  quantity  of 
water  being  delivered;  and  fitted  with  meters  to  show  the  quantity  used. 

10.  That  the  works  and  grounds  be  kept  at  all  times  in  a  cleanly  con- 
dition. 

11.  That  the  city  at  all  times  should  have  inspections  made,  to  determine 
the  manner  in  which  the  work  is  being  done. 

It  was  also  stated  that,  to  obtain  satisfactory  results  in  the  scrub- 
bers, the  temperature  of  the  gas  should  be  reduced  to  100  or  110° 
Fahr.,  and  the  velocity  should  be  at  the  rate  of  300  to  350  ft.  per 
minute,  the  quantity  of  water  required  depending  on  the  quantity  and 
temperature  of  the  gases  to  be  scrubbed. 

The  cost  of  the  necessary  changes  to  eliminate  the  public  nuisance 
from  the  reduction  plant  was  estimated  to  be  about  $100,000,  or 
approximatelj''  $50  per  ton  capacity. 

It  should  be  stated,  further,  that  this  investigation  was  carried 
out  at  a  reduction  plant  using  the  cooking  process,  and  built  on  an 
island  at  a  considerable  distance  from  dwellings.  Under  other 
conditions,  still  greater  attention  to  plant  cleanliness  and  sources  of 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  465 

odors  classed  as    local  would   be   required   where   the  location   and 
environment  are  more  critical. 

E.  DESIGN  AND  CONSTRUCTION 

The  design  of  a  reduction  plant  requires  a  study  of  its  various 
functions,  the  machines  used  for  each  process,  and  the  grouping  or 
arrangement  of  its  parts.  These  parts  are  described  below.  They 
should  be  designed  to  fit  the  local  conditions  for  each  plant.  Much 
of  the  machinery  included  is  manufactured  by  certain  firms,  and  stock 
articles  can  be  purchased.  The  general  arrangement  of  the  parts  can 
be  best  ascertained  from  the  descriptions  of  existing  plants.  Special 
designs  for  each  location,  however,  are  almost  always  required. 

1.  Buildings.— Owing  to  the  fire  risk,  the  buildings  should  be 
fire-proof.  The  acids  in  escaping  gases  act  on  galvanized  iron,  and 
therefore  it  is  not  permanent.  Brick,  stone,  or  dense  concrete  with 
smooth  surfaces  well  rubbed  down,  are  the  most  suitable  materials. 
It  is  generally  desirable  to  give  the  buildings  and  grounds  an  attractive 
appearance.     The  slight  additional  cost  is  generally  fully  justified. 

Proper  facilities  for  receiving  the  garbage  at  the  plant  depend  on 
the  method  of  delivering  it.  Provision  should  be  made  for  rapid 
handling,  with  as  little  hand  labor  as  possible. 

At  Columbus  and  Cleveland,  the  garbage  is  sent  to  the  plant  in  side- 
dumping  tank  cars.  The  receiving  buildings  contain  elevated  tracks 
for  the  cars.  Below  the  tracks  there  is  a  storage  bin  with  sloping 
bottom,  and  covered  drains.  A  conveyor  extends  along  the  bottom 
of  the  hopper.  The  cars  are  dumped  with  a  gear.  After  being 
dumped,  the  garbage  is  raked  upon  the  conveyors  by  laborers,  and  the 
tin  cans  are  picked  out.  The  free  water  flows  away  in  a  drain  for 
subsequent  treatment. 

At  Chicago  the  garbage  is  delivered  to  the  plant  in  removable 
wagon  boxes.  These  are  picked  up  by  a  crane  and  emptied  into 
elevated  storage  bins  of  reinforced  concrete.  These  bins  have  hopper 
bottoms  fitted  with  valves,  and  discharge  by  gravity  upon  conveyors. 
The  openings  and  valves  must  be  of  ample  size  to  prevent  clogging. 
Before  the  empty  wagon  boxes  are  again  set  on  the  wagon  bodies, 
they  are  washed  by  dipping  them  into  a  tank  of  hot  water  containing 
creosote. 

At  the  Barren  Island  reduction  plant  conveyors  extended  from  the 
dock  into  the  digester  building.  The  garbage  was  transferred  by  grab- 
buckets  from  the  barges  to  the  conveyors. 

At  smaller  plants  the  wagons  dump  directly  into  concrete  hoppers 
from  which  the  garbage  is  raked  upon  the  conveyors. 


466     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Ample  capacity  of  the  buildings  is  essential,  as  overcrowding  the 
plant  reduces  its  general  efficiency  and  curtails  the  opportunities  for 
thorough  cleaning.  The  apparatus  receiving  garbage  should  be 
enclosed  wherever  possible.  A  weighing  scale  should  be  placed  at  the 
entrance  to  the  plant. 

2.  Conveying  Machinery. — In  modern  reduction  works,  the  gar- 
bage, tankage,  grease,  etc.,  are  handled  mechanically.  A  large  number 
of  conveyors  and  other  apparatus  are  required.  The  surfaces,  links, 
corners,  and  adjacent  spaces  about  this  machinery  become  covered 
or  filled  with  bits  of  garbage  and  its  juices,  and  these  decompose  and 
produce  odors.  All  such  apparatus  should  be  arranged  in  accessible 
places,  with  ample  facilities  for  washing  and  cleaning. 

The  raw  garbage  is  generally  handled  in  trough  or  scraper  con- 
veyors, which  consist  of  rectangular  sheet-steel  troughs  in  which 
travels  an  endless  belt  of  vertical  steel  plates  or  scrapers.  The  plates 
fit  loosely  in  the  trough,  and  are  suspended  from  a  link  belt  which 
travels  on  rollers  running  on  rails  on  each  side  of  the  trough.  The 
garbage  is  thus  carried  or  pushed  along  by  the  plates.  Openings 
can  be  left  in  the  bottom  of  the  trough  for  discharging  the  garbage  at 
selected  points.  It  is  comparatively  easy  to  clean  a  conveyor  of  this 
type. 

Cup  conveyors  have  been  used  for  this  service,  but  are  not  gener- 
ally satisfactory.  Within  the  plant,  traveling  belt  conveyors,  and  also 
screw  conveyors,  are  used  for  tankage.  The  latter  are  particularly 
useful  for  moving  finely  divided  wet  material.  The  design  of  con- 
veying machinery  should  provide  for  access  to  every  point  for  cleaning. 

3.  Crushers. — At  plants  where  the  garbage  is  to  be  dried  without 
prior  cooking,  it  is  good  practice  to  break  it  up  in  a  crusher  or  grinder. 
For  this  service  a  number  of  machines  are  on  the  market.  A  rotary 
or  gjTatory  crusher  with  small  clearance  was  used  at  Chicago  with 
satisfactory  results.  A  rotary  crusher,  similar  to  that  used  for 
breaking  up  coal,  may  also  be  used. 

4.  Digesters. — In  cooking  garbage,  acids  are  set  free  and  may 
attack  metals.  Therefore  tanks  and  digesters  are  destroyed,  if  not 
especially  designed  to  withstand  corrosion.  The  specific  acids  formed 
depend  on  the  composition  of  the  garbage,  but  all  contain  a  mixture 
of  organic  acids,  such  as  acetic  acid.  These  are  especially  active  at 
the  temperature  which  must  be  maintained  in  the  digester. 

As  ordinarily  built,  garbage  "  cookers  "  or  digesters  consist  of 
vertical  steel  cylinders  with  openings  at  the  top  and  bottom  for  receiv- 
ing and  discharging  garbage,  steam,  water,  and  gases.  Their  pur- 
pose is  to  break  up  the  cellular  structure  of  the  garbage,  so  as  to  pro- 
mote the  separation  of  liquids  and  grease.     The  main  feature  of  the 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  467 

process  is  the  cooking  with  live  steam,  but  there  are  different  appur- 
tenances for  mixing  the  steam  and  garbage,  stirring  the  mixture,  and 
drawing  off  the  products,  each  designer  following  his  own  preference. 

At  the  Cleveland  reduction  plant  the  digesters  are  14  ft.  high  and 
4  ft.  6  in.  in  diameter.  Steam  is  turned  in  at  the  bottom,  and  the 
cooking  continues  for  six  or  seven  hours  under  70  lb.  pressure.  When 
the  cooking  is  done,  the  steam  is  shut  off  at  the  bottom  and  turned  in 
at  the  top,  the  pressure  driving  off  the  free  water  and  some  of  the 
grease  through  a  draw-off  pipe  at  the  bottom. 

At  the  Schenectady  plant,  steam  is  admitted  at  the  bottom  of  the 
digesters  through  a  ring  of  pipe  resting  on  the  bottom,  and  is  dis- 
charged through  numerous  holes  a  few  inches  from  the  inside  of  the 
shell. 

At  Columbus  each  digester  is  7  ft.  in  diameter  and  14  ft.  high,  and 
is  made  of  f-in.  steel  plates.  The  inside  is  lined  with  cement  and  tile, 
\\  in.  thick,  to  protect  the  digester  from  wear  by  the  agitation  of  the 
gritty  material  during  the  boiling,  and  to  resist  the  action  of  the  acids 
set  free.  The  diameter  of  the  inlet  at  the  top  is  18  in.;  that  of  the 
outlet  at  the  bottom  is  16  in.  A  nozzle  for  the  admission  of  steam  is 
tapped  into  each  side  of  the  outlet  casting.  The  steam,  entering  both 
nozzles  at  once,  spreads  and  circulates  thoroughly  through  the  gar- 


Experience  indicates  that  steel  digesters  without  a  lining  last  only 
about  two  years  before  extensive  repairs  or  complete  replacement  are 
necessary.  Attempts  have  been  made  to  line  them  with  wood,  but 
eventually  this  also  gives  way,  or  allows  the  iron  to  be  attacked.  The 
presence  of  the  wood  lining  also  makes  repairs  difficult.  Specifica- 
tions no\v  commonly  require  that  digesters  shall  be  lined  with  vitrified 
brick,  tile,  or — less  effectively — with  cement  or  concrete.  A  digester 
costs  from  $600  to  $1000.     (1914.) 

5.  Presses. — After  the  cooking  has  been  completed  in  the  digesters, 
the  mass  is  pressed  in  order  to  separate  the  water  and  grease  from  the 
solid  matter.  Presses  of  three  types  are  in  use;  the  hydraulic  press, 
the  roller  press,  and  the  steam  press. 

The  earliest  plants  had  the  hydraulic  press.  This  consists  of  a 
vertical  piston  carrying  on  its  lower  end  a  heavy  casting,  about  4  ft. 
square,  running  in  guides.  The  cooked  garbage,  stored  in  receiving 
tanks  under  the  digesters,  is  drawn  out  on  flat  cars  of  the  same  cross- 
section  as  the  piston  head.  The  operation  of  charging  is  as  follows: 
First,  there  is  placed  on  the  bottom  of  the  car  a  square  piece  of  lattice 
work  or  a  false  bottom,  made  of  laths,  and  on  this  is  spread  a  piece  of 
burlap.  On  top  of  the  burlap  is  set  a  square  wooden  frame  about  4  in. 
deep.     The  digested  garbage  is  run  on  the  burlap  until  the  frame 


468     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


is  full;  the  latter  is  then  removed  and  the  mass  is  bound  up  in  the 
burlap.  Another  piece  of  lattice  work  is  then  placed  above  the  burlap 
bag,  the  frame  is  replaced,  and  the  operation  repeated.  In  this  way 
each  car  is  loaded  to  a  height  of  about  8  ft.  The  car  is  then  run  under 
the  press,  and  the  material  is  pressed  down  to  a  thickness  of  2  or  2.5  ft. 
The  water  and  grease  which  have  been  squeezed  out  on  the  floor  are 
conducted  in  drains  to  a  pump  well  or  settling  basin.  For  loading  one 
car  about  twenty  pieces  of  lattice  work  and  about  20  yd.  of  burlap 


Fig.   115. — Pressing  Grease  and  Water  from  Cooked  Garbage,  New  York. 
(From  "The  Disposal  of  Municipal  Refuse,"  by  H.  de  B.  Parsons.) 

are  used.  The  lattice  work  lasts  only  a  few  days.  Two  men  are 
required  to  load  a  car.  The  work  is  dirty  and  unpleasant,  because  the 
hot  cooked  garbage  spatters  about  considerably,  and  quantities  of 
steam  and  vapor  are  given  off.  The  presses  operate  under  a  pressure  of 
from  40  to  100  lb.  per  square  inch.  The  process  is  illustrated  in 
Fig.  115. 

The  continuous-roller  press  permits  of  cleaner  operation,  and 
requires  less  labor.  Typical  roller  presses  are  used  at  the  Columbus 
reduction  works,  from  designs  by  Mr.  Charles  Edgerton.  They  are 
enclosed  in  cast-iron  covers,  about  28  ft.  long,  7  ft.  high,  and  3  ft.  wide, 
and  are  practically  gas-tight.  Each  press  is  connected  directly 
with  the  bottom  of  a  receiving  hopper,  which  stands  under  and  serves 


REDUCTION  OF  GARB  AGE  469 

four  digesters.  There  is  an  upper  and  a  lower  conveying  apron,  the 
upper  one  being  made  up  of  \-\u.  steel  strips  riveted  to  heavy  forged- 
steel  chains.  This  apron  forms  the  bottom  of  the  receiving  hopper, 
and,  as  it  moves,  the  material  is  carried  through  the  feeding  rolls  and  is 
discharged  on  the  lower  apron.  The  upper  apron  occupies  the  rear 
half  of  the  machine  (Fig.  116),  the  lower  one  passes  through  six  cast- 
iron  rollers,  set  in  pairs,  one  above  the  other,  and  at  the  front  end  of 
the  machine.  It  is  composed  of  perforated  plates,  f  in.  thick,  riveted 
to  forged-steel  chains.  The  rollers  are  2S  in.  in  diameter,  and  are 
controlled  by  heavy  steel  springs,  by  which  the  pressure  may  be 
increased  or  decreased,  depending  on  the  quantity  of  material  to  be 
pressed.  These  presses  are  constructed  of  cast  iron,  wrought  steel,  or 
cast  steel,  and  are  fitted  with  renewable  wearing  strips,  take-up  boxes, 
and  cleaning  brushes.  The  pressed  material  is  discharged  at  the 
front  of  the  press  into  a  conveyor.  The  water  and  grease  flow  out  of 
the  sides  into  floor  drains  leading  to  catch-basins. 

The  steam  press,  devised  by  Mr.  Irving  Blount,  is  a  more  recent 
development,  and  was  used  at  the  Barren  Island  reduction  works. 
It  is  constructed  of  heavy  steel  plates,  and  comprises  a  center  cylin- 
drical section  having  a  perforated  internal  lining,  and  two  slightly 
coned  end-cylinders,  also  with  perforated  lining.  The  two  end 
pieces  are  connected  with  the  center  cylinder  by  heavy  hinges  at  the 
top,  and  are  closed  tightly  with  heavy  bolts  extending  around  the 
circumference.  When  closed,  the  press  is  filled  with  material  from 
the  receiving  hopper.  live  steam  at  high  pressure  is  applied,  and 
drives  out  the  water  and  free  grease  through  the  perforated  lining 
into  pipes  leading  to  catch-basins.  When  the  pressing  has  been 
completed,  the  two  coned  ends  are  disconnected  from  the  center 
cylinder,  and  the  outer  ends  are  swung  around  the  hinges.  This 
opens  the  press  so  that  the  pressed  material  can  be  discharged  on  the 
floor  and  scraped  upon  a  conveyor.  If  the  press  is  set  vertically,  only 
the  lower  end  is  hinged,  and  when  it  is  opened  the  material  drops 
to  the  floor. 

In  smaller  plants,  the  pressing  is  sometimes  done  in  digesters, 
through  a  perforated  false  bottom.  A  continuous  screw  press  is  also 
suitable  for  handling  relatively  small  quantities  of  material.  Pressing 
in  digesters  requires  about  two  hours. 

At  the  Chicago  reduction  plant,  screw  presses  were  used.  These 
consist  of  a  long  pipe  or  cylinder  within  which  is  a  revolving  screw. 
The  cylinder  is  perforated  along  the  bottom,  and  fitted  with  small  steel 
arms  which  fit  the  threads  of  the  screw.  The  screw  revolves  con- 
tinuously, pressing  the  material  between  its  blades  and  the  steel  arms, 
and  forcing  the  liquor  out  through  the  perforations  in  the  cylinder. 


470    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  471 

The  moisture  content  of  the  material  after  pressing,  is  from  50 
to  65%. 

The  liquid,  called  "stick,"  after  leaving  the  presses  is  sometimes 
reduced  and  thickened  by  evaporation,  and  is  added  to  the  tankage 
to  enrich  it. 

6.  Driers. — The  methods  of  drying  are  by  direct  or  indirect  heat. 
Direct-heat  drying  requires  long  cylindrical  drums  fitted  inside  with 
blades  which  turn  the  material  over  and  carry  it  through  the 
drums  as  it  revolves.  A  blast  of  hot  air  is  blown  continuously  through 
the  drum.  The  temperature  of  this  air  is  ordinarily  from  300  to  400° 
Fahr.  The  escaping  air  contains  foul-smelling  gases,  and  must  be 
purified.  Its  relatively  large  volume  makes  purification  expensive. 
It  is  also  found  at  times  that  the  temperature  of  the  air  becomes 
excessive,  thus  causing  some  of  the  grease  to  be  burned  and  some  of 
the  ammonia  to  be  driven  off. 

As  the  margin  between  the  economical  temperature  required  for 
drying  and  that  at  which  the  grease  burns  is  slight,  the  grease  recovery 
with  direct-heat  drying  may  be  slightly  less  than  with  indirect  heat. 

Indirect-heat  drying  also  requires  long  revolving  cylindrical  drums; 
but,  as  these  are  steam-jacketed,  a  more  uniform  temperature  results, 
and  there  are  smaller  volumes  of  air  and  steam  to  care  for.  The 
danger  of  burning  the  grease  is  also  reduced  by  the  separation  of  the 
garbage  from  the  hot  steam,  and  by  the  steam  temperature  not  greatly 
exceeding  212°  Fahr.  This  method,  however,  is  somewhat  more 
costly  than  drying  with  direct  heat. 

The  design  of  the  machinery  for  drying  is  important,  for  several 
reasons.  A  sufficient  and  proper  equipment  is  required  in  practically 
all  types  of  plant,  as  this  may  be  the  chief  source  of  odorous  gases. 
At  the  Barren  Island  plant,  it  was  estimated  that  175,000  cu.  ft.  of  gas 
per  minute  are  given  off  from  the  driers  of  the  direct-heat  tj^pe. 

Two  types  of  driers  are  used:  The  direct-heat  and  the  steam- 
jacketed  drier;  and  of  each  of  these  several  designs  are  on  the  market. 
A  direct-heat  rotary  drier  consists  of  a  single  steel  shell  in  which  the 
hot  furnace  gases  come  in  direct  contact  with  the  material  to  be  dried. 
Near  the  inlet  end  is  a  suitable  furnace  for  generating  heat  from  coal, 
oil,  gas,  or  other  fuel.  The  revolving  steel  cylinder  is  slightly  inclined 
from  the  horizontal.  The  hot  furnace  gases  and  the  wet  material 
enter  at  the  same  end  and  pass  through,  the  wet  material  being 
thoroughly  agitated  and  mixed  with  the  gases  by  the  lifting  action  of 
steel  angles  and  lugs  placed  inside  the  cylinder. 

Such  driers  are  built  as  large  as  5  ft.  in  diameter  and  40  ft.  long. 
They  are  used  for  drying  crushed  garbage  in  plants  where  the  cooking 
process  is  not  used.     There  is  danger  of  burning  or  charring  some  of 


472     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

the  grease  and  the  fertilizer  materials,  although  this  danger  is  reduced 
somewhat  by  first  bringing  the  hottest  gases  into  contact  with  the 
wettest   material. 

A  steam-jacketed  rotary  drier  consists  of  an  inner  shell  surrounded 
by  a  steam-jacket  and  fitted  inside  with  lifting  angles.  The  heat  for 
drying  comes  from  the  steam  through  the  inner  sheU.  The  heat  is 
augmented  by  blowing  hot  air  through  the  shell.  A  radiator  of 
steam  coils  is  set  in  a  brick  house  at  the  rear  end  of  the  drier,  and  a 
small  cast-iron  fan  blows  air  through  the  coils  and  into  the  drier.  At 
the  discharge  end  of  the  drier  an  exhaust  fan  forces  the  saturated  air  to 
a  purifying  apparatus.  The  material  to  be  dried  is  fed  into  the  drier 
by  a  special  conveyor,  and  passes  through  it  by  gravity,  the  drier 
being  slightly  inclined.  The  drying  process  consumes  more  time  with 
this  than  with  the  other  type. 

An  intermediate  form  consists  of  two  concentric  steel  cyHnders. 
The  inner  cylinder  acts  as  a  flue  for  hot  furnace  gases,  and  the  space 
between  it  and  the  outer  cylinder  is  used  for  the  passage  of  the  material 
to  be  dried.  The  two  cylinders  are  firmly  connected  by  heavy  cast- 
iron  braces,  and  both  revolve  together.  At  the  end  farthest  from 
the  furnace,  the  hot  gases,  now  partly  cooled,  pass  into  the  annular 
space  and  return  to  the  furnace  end,  passing  through  the  tumbling 
material.  This  method  of  drying  decreases  the  danger  of  burning. 
A  similar  type  consists  of  a  cylinder  mounted  within  a  brick  chamber. 
Hot  gases  enter  the  chamber  surrounding  the  cylinder,  and  are  drawn 
into  the  latter  through  openings  cut  at  intervals  in  its  shell.  The 
material  to  be  dried  passes  through  the  cyKnder. 

Still  other  types  are  used.  For  small  plants,  a  vertical  cylinder, 
about  6  ft.  in  diameter  and  6  ft.  high,  is  sufficient.  This  may  be  set 
in  the  brickwork  of  a  furnace;  or  the  drying  may  be  accomplished  by 
steam  working  under  a  vacuum.  Another  device  provides  a  porous 
hearth  in  a  concrete  box.  Heated  air  is  driven  by  a  fan  into  a  space 
below  the  hearth,  and  forced  through  the  pores  into  and  through  the 
material  to  be  dried,  the  latter  being  placed  on  the  upper  end  of 
the  hearth. 

With  these  drying  processes,  the  moisture  content  may  be  reduced 
to  about  10%.  Secondary  driers  may  be  required  to  dry  the  tankage 
after  percolation. 

7.  Separators. — There  are  several  designs  of  basins  for  separating 
the  grease  from  the  water  and  other  impurities.  The  simplest  are 
shallow  rectangular  tanks  in  which  the  grease  rises  and  floats  above  the 
water,  whence  it  is  pumped  to  a  storage  tank.  A  more  elaborate 
arrangement  is  a  battery  of  vertical  steel  tanks  connected  in  series. 
The  floating  grease  overflows  from  the  first  tank  into  the  second,  and 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  473 

so  on  through  all  the  tanks,  the  largest  quantity  being  collected  in  the 
last  tank.  Treating  tanks  are  also  sometimes  used.  These  are 
either  rectangular  or  circular,  and  the  grease  is  heated  in  them  by- 
steam  coils  to  remove  the  impurities.  These  tanks  should  have 
hopper  bottoms,  to  facilitate  cleaning.  The  grease  is  pumped  from 
them  into  storage  tanks  for  shipment. 

8.  Evaporators. — The  so-called  tank-water  which  remains  in  the 
grease-separating  tanks  contains  enough  valuable  solids  in  solution  to 
make  it  pay  to  recover  them,  under  certain  conditions.  This  is  done 
by  evaporation.  Modern  evaporators  operate  with  steam  (often 
exhaust  steam)  under  a  vacuum. 

One  type  of  evaporator  is  made  up  of  a  vertical,  cjdindrical  shell 
of  cast  iron  or  other  suitable  material.  At  the  bottom  is  a  heating 
surface  of  tubes,  and  above  is  the  vapor  space.  The  steam  circulates 
within  the  tubes,  and  the  liquor  outside  of  them. 

At  the  Columbus  works,  triple-effect  evaporators  are  used.  Each 
is  8  ft.  in  diameter,  and  the  total  heating  surface  is  2554  sq.  ft.,  made 
up  of  No.  14  (old  gage)  brass  tubes,  \\  in.  in  diameter.  These 
evaporators  can  concentrate  1500  gal.  of  tank  water  per  hour  from 
7°  to  22°  Baume,  using  exhaust  steam  at  a  pressure  of  5  lb.,  and  a 
vacuum  of  25  in.  in  the  third-effect  evaporator.  Condenser  pumps, 
sight  holes,  and  other  appurtenances  are  required.  The  con- 
centrated syrup  is  drawn  off  by  a  Magma  pump,  and  mixed  with 
the  tankage.  Other  satisfactory  types  of  evaporators  are  in  the 
market. 

9.  Percolators. — Percolators  or  extractors  are  used  to  treat  the 
dried  material  with  a  solvent  and  thereby  recover  the  remaining  grease. 
It  is  necessary  to  have  an  intimate  mixture  of  the  material  with  the 
solvent,  and  a  provision  for  drawing  off  the  solvent  and  grease  with  as 
little  of  the  solid  matter  as  possible. 

Percolators  are  ordinarily  vertical,  cylindrical,  iron  tanks,  from 
8  to  10  ft.  high  and  from  4  to  7  ft.  in  diameter,  the  garbage  being 
charged  through  an  opening  in  the  top.  The  solvent  is  pumped  in, 
is  allowed  to  percolate  through  the  material,  and  is  later  drawn  off  with 
the  grease.  An  appreciable  quantity  of  the  solvent  remains,  but  this 
is  recovered  by  injecting  steam  into  the  percolator,  which  vaporizes 
and  drives  it  off. 

To  complete  the  extracting  process,  the  following  apparatus  are 
required.  The  grease  and  solvent  flow  from  the  percolator  to  a  treat- 
ing tank  in  which  steam  coils  heat  the  liquid  sufficiently  to  vaporize 
the  solvent  and  leave  the  grease  in  the  tank.  The  vaporized  solvent 
then  passes  through  a  condenser,  where  it  is  recovered.  The  loss  of 
solvent  may  amount  to  as  much  as  2.5  gal.  per  ton  of  material  treated. 


474     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

With  the  Cobwell  process,  at  New  Bedford,  the  loss  of  solvent  is  said 
to  be  from  2  to  5  gal.  per  ton  of  garbage  treated. 

The  Columbus  reduction  plant  was  first  built  without  percolators. 
A  percolating  plant,  costing  approximately  $20,000,  was  added  sub- 
sequently. During  1912,  203.5  tons  of  grease  were  recovered  by 
percolation,  amounting  to  1.82%  of  the  total  garbage  reduced.  The 
price  received  for  the  grease  was  $16,890,  or  4.14  cents  per  pound. 
The  cost  of  operating  the  percolating  plant  during  the  year  was 
$4,601.97,  including  labor,  fuel,  gasoline,  and  supplies.  The  records  of 
grease  and  tankage  recovered  at  the  Columbus  plant  are  shown  in 
Table  134. 

TABLE  134. — Grease  and  Tankage  Recovered 
AT  Columbus  Reduction  Plant 

(From  Engineering  News-Record,  Nov.  18,  1920.) 


Year 

Tons  of  garbage 
reduced 

Percentage  of  total  garbage 
reduced 

Grease 

Tankage 

1911 

1912 
1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1918 
1919 

17,534 
18,789 
20,711 
21,629 
22,909 
21,861 
17,127 
15,630 
18,126 

2.227 
2.721 
2.697 
2.744 
2.214 
3.076 
2.261 
2.164 
1.942 

13.37 
11.64 
10.10 

8.10 
10.031 
10.307 
10.214 
10.258 

8.60 

10.  Screens. — Generally,  screening  is  the  finishing  process  for  the 
tankage.  Overhead  revolving  screens,  having  about  five  openings 
per  square  inch,  separate  all  large  lumps,  nails,  cans,  etc.,  from  the 
tankage.  Sometimes  iron  particles  are  withdrawn  on  magnetized 
belt  conveyors.  The  screened  product  is  taken  to  a  storage  room. 
In  the  West  the  tankage  is  sometimes  burned.  Under  favorable  con- 
ditions of  burning,  6  tons  of  tankage  have  been  found  equivalent  to 
1  ton  of  coal. 

11.  Water  Supply. — A  comparatively  large  volume  of  water  is 
required  in  the  operation  of  reduction  plants.  The  quantity  used  at 
the  Los  Angeles  plant  (Cobwell  system)  is  shown  on  Fig.  117,  and 
averages  from  200  to  300  cu.  ft.  per  ton  of  garbage  reduced.  In  this 
plant  the  condenser  water  is  cooled  and  used  over  and  over  again. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 


475 


Cubic  Feet  of  Water 
per  Ton  of  Garbage 

JO  CO  CO  * 

y;  o  oi  o 

o  O  o  o 


Tons  of  Garbage 

Treated  per  Day 

5              g              g              i 

L 

_, 

V 

Crf 

is 

IS 

1 

■I?" 

■^ 

lo 

i 

p 

c 

1^ 

/ 

V 

T 

t> 

H 

< 

y 

m 

i 

H 

H 

o 

0 

rs 

1  1 : 

[ 

1 

! 

o 
a 

o 

B 

1 

H 

►-1 

-1 

1 

3-  s  1 

c 

"■ 

r 

c 

rj 

H 

o 

•< 

O' 

t?: 

i  t| 

1 

n 

1 

^ 

3 

1 

M 

J^ 

U 

! 

O 

o 

O 

i 

^ 

■1 

1 

11 

►^ 

o 

s 

e 

•  1 

~j 

g 

^ 

•< 

1 

CO 

S 

K 

1 

tr 

1 

■ 

1 

1 

(> 

■o 

1 

1 
1 

o 

B 

^ 

1 

1 

o 

I 
1 

I 

Ch 

S 

B 

"^ 

.^ 

^, 

_ 

-^  1 

■^ 

Fig.  117. — Quantity  of  Garbage  Treated,  Los  Angeles,  Cal.,  and  Quantity 
of  Water  Required  per  Ton  of  Garbage,  for  Year  Ending  June  30,  1918. 


476     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

At  Columbus,  where  this  is  not  done,  the  water  consumption  is  esti- 
mated and  given  at  1000  cu.  ft.  per  ton  of  garbage. 

12.  Storage. — Pending  shipment,  there  must  be  ample  facihties 
for  storing  grease  and  tankage.  The  grease  is  pumped  to  overhead 
tanks,  from  which  it  can  flow  into  tank  cars.  At  the  Columbus  plant, 
with  a  daily  capacity  of  160  tons  of  raw  garbage,  four  grease  storage 
tanks  are  provided,  with  a  total  capacity  of  15,000  gal.  The  plant 
at  Spectacle  Island,  Boston,  has  storage  capacity  for  250  tons  of  grease 
per  twenty-four  hours,  or  50,000  gal. 

Storage  for  tankage  is  ordinarily  provided  on  an  upper  floor  in 
order  to  facilitate  shipping  in  bulk  in  box  cars.  Some  plants  have  a 
special  warehouse.  At  the  St.  Louis  plant,  with  a  capacity  of  150 
tons  of  garbage  per  twenty-four  hours,  the  warehouse  is  36  by  128  ft. 
in  plan. 

13.  Shipping  Facilities. — Special  switch  tracks  should  be  provided 
for  shipping  the  grease  and  tankage.  There  should  also  be  scales,  and 
a  laboratory  for  sampling  and  analyzing  the  products,  as  their  value 
depends  on  their  composition. 

14.  Accessories. — The  accessories  at  a  garbage  reduction  plant 
include  a  boiler  plant,  with  all  appurtenances,  a  good  fire-fighting 
system,  an  office,  and  a  laboratory  with  instruments.  Scales,  road- 
ways, electric  lighting,  etc.,  are  also  necessary.  The  boiler  equip- 
ment at  a  number  of  plants  is  shown  in  Table  135. 

TABLE  135. — Capacity  of  Boilers  at  Reduction  Plants 


Plant 

Rated  capacity 

of  plant,  in 
tons  per  day 

Boiler 
horse-power 

Horse-power 
per  ton 

Barren  Island,  N.  Y 

Staten  Island,  N.  Y 

Boston,  Mass 

Los  Angeles,  Cal 

Chicago,  111* 

Columbus,  Ohio 

Cleveland,  Ohio 

Schenectady,  N.  Y 

2000 

2000 
250 
175 
500 
160 
240 
40 

5320 
3000 
1750 
900 
506 
700 
700 
250 

2.6 
1.5 
7.6 
5.1 
1.0 
4.4 
3.0 
6.2 

No  digestion,  simply  drying. 


The  chimney  must  be  adequate  for  both  the  boilers  and  the 
cleaned  gases  from  the  digesters,  driers,  and  other  parts  of  the 
plant. 

Reduction  works  require  special  attention  in  regard  to  the  elimina- 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  477 

tion  of  odors  of  the  waste  products,  particularly  the  waste  gases. 
Up  to  the  present  time,  the  problem  has  been  difficult  of  satisfactory 
solution  by  the  constructive    means  generally  used. 

F.  OPERATION 

The  operation  of  a  reduction  plant  requires  both  technical  skill 
and  business  ability,  the  latter  being  necessary  to  market  the  products. 
At  large  plants  a  chemist  should  be  employed.  Compared  with  other 
methods  of  disposal,  a  higher  grade  of  skilled  labor  is  required,  because 
of  the  complex  mechanical  and  chemical  nature  of  the  process.  For 
successful  operation  it  is  necessary  to  watch  the  cooking  process,  to 
make  sure  that  a  digester  is  not  emptied  before  cooking  is  complete; 
the  drjdng  must  be  properly  regulated  to  avoid  loss  by  burning;  and 
the  percolation  must  be  carefully  controlled  to  avoid  the  excessive 
loss  of  solvents.  There  must  be  strict  discipline,  in  order  to  avoid 
danger  of  fires;  and  careful  attention  to  the  details  of  maintenance  and 
operation  is  required,  if  odors  are  not  to  exceed  an  allowable  minimum. 
Frequent  inspection  by  the  Health  Department  is  advisable. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  reduction  works  have  been  in  the  hands 
of  private  corporations  and  contractors,  information  regarding  the 
details  of  their  operation,  as  well  as  cost,  have  not  been  as  available 
as  have  those  of  other  methods  of  disposal.  Cleveland  has  built 
and  operated  reduction  works  by  its  own  officers,  who,  in  their  annual 
reports  and  otherwise,  have  recorded  the  best  published  information 
available  on  the  operations  of  such  plants.  Columbus,  likewise, 
built  and  operated  a  municipal  plant,  from  which  detailed  information 
is  available.  Other  cities  now  operating  their  own  plants  are  Day- 
ton, Akron,  Schenectady,  and  Chicago.  Washington  has  recently 
taken  over  such  a  plant  from  the  contractors,  and  will  add  still  more 
to  our  knowledge  concerning  the  best  details  of  operation. 

From  the  annual  report  for  1919  of  Mr.  Alex.  Bernstein,  Director  of 
Public  Service  in  Cleveland,  we  find  that  the  grease  content  increased 
from  2.36%  in  1918  to  2.55%  in  1919,  showing  a  slight  relaxation  in 
the  conservation  movement. 

Table  136  is  a  comparative  statement  of  the  operation  of  the 
Cleveland  reduction  plant  for  the  years  1915  to  1919. 

In  Chapter  XII  will  be  found  a  statement  of  the  crew  and  equip- 
ment required  to  operate  the  works,  as  well  as  the  cost. 


478     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

TABLE   136. — Operations  of  the   Cleveland   Reduction   Works 
FOR  1915,  1916,  1917,  1918,  and  1919 

(From  Annual  Report,  Director  of  Public  Works,  1919.) 


1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

Garbage    collected,    in 

62,357 

6,879 
3,731,770 

$223,145.14 
151,503.31 

60,717 

7,0371 
3,819,325 

$302,427.16 
155,584.80 

56,121 

6,341 
3,071,092 

$292,012.96 
191,001.09 

57,754 

6,329 
2,726,786 

$437,344.01 
265,243.29 

60,932 

7,093J 
3,116,797 

$295,680.69 
238,202.73 

Tankage  recovered,   in 

Grease  extracted,  in  lb. 

Earnings — Reduction. . 
Expense — Reduction.  . 

Earnings — Net 

$71,641.83 

$146,842.36 

$101,011.87 

$172,100.72 

$57,477.96 

Comparison  per  Ton  of  Garbage  Collected 

Earnings — Reduction. . 
Expense — Reduction.  . 

Net    earnings — Reduc- 

$3.58 
2.43 

$4.98 
2.56 

$5.20 
3.40 

$7.57 
4.59 

$4.85 
3.91 

$1.15 

$2.42 

$1.80 

$2.98 

$0.94 

G.  PLANTS  BUILT  AND  RESULTS  OBTAINED 

Available  records  indicate  that  forty-five  reduction  plants  have 
been  built  in  America,  but,  of  these,  only  about  twenty  were  in  active 
use  in  1918. 

Boston,  Los  Angeles,  Cincinnati,  Pittsburgh,  Detroit,  Toledo, 
Philadelphia,  Bridgeport,  and  New  Bedford  dispose  of  their  garbage 
by  reduction  under  contract.  Schenectady,  Columbus,  Cleveland, 
Dayton,  Chicago,  Washington,  and  Indianapolis  have  their  own  plants, 
and  at  Rochester  and  Syracuse  works  are  under  construction.  The 
New  York  plants  on  Barren  Island  and  on  Staten  Island  have  been 
at  present  abandoned. 

Brief  descriptions  of  a  few  of  these  plants  follow: 

1.  New  York  City. — The  original  garbage  reduction  plant  was 
built  in  1896  on  Barren  Island,  about  11  miles  in  an  air  fine  from 
the  City  Hall;  and,  with  changes,  additions,  and  enlargements,  it 
treated  garbage  from  the  Boroughs  of  Manhattan,  The  Bronx,  and 
Brooklyn  from  that  time  until  1917.  In  that  year  a  new  plant, 
using  the  Cobwell  system,  was  put  into  operation  on  Staten  Island, 
under  a  contract  for  five  years.  Fig.  118  shows  the  general  layout  of 
the  plant,  and  also  longitudinal  and   cross-sections.     The  following 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 


479 


480      COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

description  is  abstracted  from  the  Engineering  News- Record  of  March 
21,  1918: 

"  The  plant  is  located  on  Fresh  Kills,  lower  Staten  Island,  Borough  of 
Richmond,  New  York  City.  There  is  no  railroad  connection.  All  materials 
used  must  be  brought  in  or  taken  out  by  boats.  The  materials  received  are 
1500  tons  of  garbage  per  day,  the  necessary  solvent,  and  coal  for  3000  h.p. 
of  boilers.  The  products  shipped  are  grease,  tankage,  and  such  by-products 
as  bottles,  cans,  bones,  and  rags.  To  accommodate  the  shipping,  a  dock  1000 
ft.  long  has  been  provided.  The  designers  of  this  plant  had  about  57  acres 
of  unimproved  practically  level  land  at  their  disposal,  so  the  conditions  were 
ideal  for  the  construction  of  a  plant  for  the  economical  and  rapid  handling  of 
the  garbage,  the  various  materials  required  for  its  treatment,  and  for  the 
disposal  of  the  final  products. 

"  The  plant  was  put  in  operation  late  in  1917.  It  was  designed  to  meet 
the  conditions  of  a  contract  between  the  Metropolitan  By-products  Co.  and 
the  City  of  New  York  for  the  disposal  of  all  the  garbage  from  the  city,  except- 
ing a  part  of  Queens  Borough  and  Staten  Island,  for  a  period  of  five  years,  the 
city  reserving  the  privilege  to  buy  the  plant  at  the  expiration  of  the  contract. 
The  nominal  capacity  of  the  plant  is  1500  tons  a  day.  It  is  operated  in  three 
shifts  of  eight  hours  each. 

"  While  in  transit  in  150-  to  300-ton  barges  the  garbage  is  covered  with 
large  water-proofed  tarpaulins  which  are  washed  and  spread  out  to  dry  each 
trip  while  the  garbage  is  being  unloaded. 

"  A  2-yd.  clamshell  bucket  transfers  the  garbage  from  the  barges  to  a  large 
receiving  hopper  placed  on  shore  and  located  directly  over  a  picking  or  sorting 
conveyor.  A  feeder  is  provided  under  this  hopper  to  insure  an  even  layer  of 
material  on  the  conveyor,  which  is  essential  to  the  preliminary  sorting  of  cer- 
tain materials.  This  feeder  consists  of  a  cast-iron  box  in  which  two  inter- 
meshing  paddle  wheels  slowly  revolve,  allowing  the  proper  amount  of  material 
to  pass  through. 

"  The  picking  conveyor  consists  of  a  series  of  overlapping  steel  pans 
mounted  on  two  strands  of  chains  that  are  in  turn  mounted  on  self-oiling 
roUers.  Men  are  stationed  on  both  sides  of  this  slow-moving  conveyor  whose 
duty  it  is  to  remove  (as  far  as  possible  without  stirring)  all  glass,  crockery, 
cans,  large  rags,  wood  and  other  substances  that  might  clog  the  conveyors  or 
machinery.  It  is  here  that  the  milk  and  wine  bottles  are  recovered  and  placed 
in  boxes  or  barrels,  whUe  worthless  broken  crockery,  sticks,  etc.,  are  thrown 
into  a  chnte  that  leads  to  a  dump  car  below.  The  empty  cans  are  separated 
and  when  a  boat  load  has  accumulated  they  are  shipped  away.  It  is  inter- 
esting to  note  that  the  tin  is  recovered  from  the  cans  by  a  bath  of  chlorine  gas. 
The  gas  is  condensed  and  used  in  the  dyeing  of  silk.  The  cans  are  then  melted 
and  cast  into  sash  weights. 

"  From  the  picking  conveyor  the  green  garbage  is  fed  to  the  system  of  con- 
veyors installed  inside  the  reducer  house,  i  hese  conveyors,  eight  in  number, 
are  made  alike  in  so  far  as  duplication  is  possible.  Each  one  consists  of  a 
double  strand  of  heavy  drop-forged  chain  between  the  strands  of  which  are 
mounted,  at  intervals,  steel  plate  fhghts  of  scrapers.     These  scrapers  run  in  a 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  481 

v/ater-tight  trough  in  which  are  located  slide  gates  of  the  rack-and-pinion  type. 
The  gates  are  all  of  the  same  pattern,  whether  for  feeding  down  to  the  reducers 
or  from  one  conveyor  to  another. 

"  The  conveyors  are  so  arranged  that  by  the  proper  manipulation  of  the 
gates  the  garbage  can  be  directed  to  any  one  of  the  199  reducers  located  under 
the  conveyors.  The  conveyors  are  driven  by  electric  motors— the  drives  being 
alike,  so  that  one  spare  part  of  each  kind  suffices  for  any.  Conveyors  2  and  3 
are  in  duplicate,  so  that  any  mishap  to  either  will  not  tie  up  the  plant.  Con- 
veyors 8  and  9  are  called  the  '  overs  '  conveyors,  for,  as  their  name  implies, 
they  are  so  placed  that  they  will  catch  any  material  that  might  run  over  the 
openings,  or  be  left  over  after  filling  the  reducers  when  using  conveyors 
4,  5,  6,  or  7. 

"  The  main  or  reducer  building  is  a  one-story  structure  of  concrete,  with 
brick-filled  side-walls,  covering  an  area  160X337  ft.  Space  is  allowed  for  10 
rows  of  reducers,  24  in  a  row,  or  41  more  than  the  present  installation.  The 
reducers  are  elevated  a  few  feet  from  the  floor,  to  accommodate  the  necessary 
pipe  lines,  traps,  etc.,  as  well  as  to  facilitate  the  discharging  of  the  finished 
product  onto  a  belt  conveyor  placed  in  a  pit  between  two  rows  of  reducers. 
There  are  two  platforms  running  the  length  of  the  house.  One  platform  is  in 
front  of  two  lines  of  reducers  and  gives  access  to  all  gagss  and  sight  glasses. 
The  other  platform  is  a  little  higher  (just  on  a  level  with  the  reducer  top)  and 
gives  access  to  the  sample  holes  and  spouts  for  filling  in  the  green  garbage. 
These  platforms  are  made  of  2X4-in.  stuff  laid  flat  with  about  |  in.  between, 
and  are  the  only  wood  in  the  building. 

"  Each  group  of  24  reducers  has  its  separate  crew  of  men  and  its  own  vapor 
and  steam  lines,  trap  tanks,  condensers,  and  separators.  Furthermore,  the 
piping  and  valves  are  so  arranged  that  any  one  reducer  can  be  out  of  commis- 
sion without  affecting  the  operation  of  the  others. 

"  The  reducer  is  the  central  feature  of  the  disposal  process,  Icnown  as  the 
Cobwell  system,  which  was  designed  by  the  C.  O.  Bartlett  and  Snow  Co., 
Cleveland,  and  consists  of  a  cylindrical  steel  sheU  whose  height  is  about  one- 
half  the  diameter.  The  bottom  and  sides  of  the  reducers  are  double-jacketed 
and  so  arranged  that  live  steam  at  about  100  lb.  pressure  can  be  admitted 
to  the  jacket  without  coming  in  contact  with  material  inside  the  reducer.  A 
center  spindle  is  located  on  the  vertical  axis  of  the  reducer,  on  which  is  mounted 
a  pair  of  stirring  paddles.  This  spindle  is  revolved  by  means  of  a  pair  of  bevel 
gears  and  shafting  located  on  the  top  of  the  tank  and  driven  by  means  of  a 
tight  and  loose  pulley  from  an  electric-motor-driven  line  shaft  which  serves 
24  reducers.  A  single  reducer  holds  about  5  tons  of  green  garbage  and  is 
filled  in  from  five  to  fifteen  minutes. 

"  When  the  charging  of  a  reducer  is  completed,  the  charging  door  is  clamped 
down,  and  solvent  is  introduced  untU  the  mass  is  just  covered.  Steam  is  then 
turned  into  the  steam  jacket,  the  agitators  are  started,  and  the  valves  to  the 
vapor  line  opened.  The  vapors  are  carried  to  a  condenser,  where  the  solvent 
is  separated  from  the  water  and  returned  to  the  system  for  further  use.  Sea 
water  is  used  for  condensing,  and  is  returned  to  the  bay.  It  is  interesting  to 
note  that  the  water  vaporizes  at  a  lower  temperature  when  evaporated  with 
a  solvent  than  otherwise.    Cooking  is  continued  until  the  garbage  is  completely 


482     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

dehydrated  and  the  solvent  goes  to  the  condenser  free  of  water.  During  the 
process  of  dehydration,  more  or  less  liquid,  sometimes  containing  such  light 
substances  as  corks,  is  carried  over,  hence  it  is  necessary  to  introduce  a  large 
trap  tank  that  can  be  drawn  off  from  the  bottom. 

* '  The  dehydrating  operation  requires  about  seven  hours,  at  the  end  of 
which  time  the  solvent  contains  a  large  amount  of  grease  which  has  been  liber- 
ated from  the  garbage.  The  reducer  is  provided  with  strainers  in  the  bottom 
through  which  the  liquor  containing  solvent  and  grease  is  then  drawn  to  a 
still  or  treating  tank,  in  which  the  solvent  is  recovered  by  distillation.  The 
reducer  is  then  filled  again  with  solvent  and  drawn  off  as  before,  and  even  a 
third  time — the  three  washings  requiring  an  average  of  45,  90,  and  120  min- 
utes, respectively. 

"  The  separation  of  the  grease  from  the  solvent  is  all  done  in  one  still 
house  in  which  are  located  10  stills  that  can  be  used  interchangeably.  The 
stills  consist  of  cylindrical  steel  tanks,  8  ft.  in  diameter  and  30  ft.  long,  laid 
horizontally,  in  which  is  located  a  nest  of  small  pipes  for  the  admission  of 
steam,  the  steam  never  coming  in  contact  with  the  material  to  be  distilled. 
When  the  grease-laden  solvent  is  introduced  it  is  vaporized  and  then  condensed 
in  a  jet  condenser,  while  the  grease  is  left  as  residue  and  is  drawn  off  to  storage 
tanks. 

"  The  discharge  door  on  the  side  of  the  reducer  is  then  opened.  The 
agitator  is  so  shaped  that  when  revolving  it  has  a  tendency  to  push  the  mass 
out  toward  the  sides  of  the  reducer,  thus  making  it  self-emptying.  It  requires 
about  fifteen  minutes  to  empty.  The  material  as  it  leaves  the  reducer  is  of  a 
brownish  color,  and  has  an  odor  not  at  all  offensive,  reminding  one  of  fresh 
roasted  coffee.  It  is  then  perfectly  dry  and  sterile,  and  is  usually  caUed 
tankage. 

"  The  tankage  is  discharged  from  the  reducers  at  a  uniform  rate,  and 
drops  by  gravity  onto  a  belt  conveyor  for  transportation  to  the  tankage  house. 
Although  the  material  is  warm,  it  is  not  hot  enough  to  do  any  damage  to  the 
belt  conveyors.  By  a  series  of  longitudinal  cross  and  inclined  belt  conveyors, 
the  tankage  is  elevated  to  a  point  about  50  ft.  above  the  ground,  where  it  is 
discharged  into  a  large  revolving  screen,  provided  with  riding  rings  that  run 
on  revolving  trunnions.  The  screen  is  made  of  wire  cloth  with  Ij-in.  mesh. 
The  tailings  are  discharged  onto  a  slow-speed  belt  conveyor.  Two  men  are 
stationed  alongside  this  conveyor.  One  picks  out  all  bones  and  drops  them  in 
a  chute  that  leads  to  a  distributing  conveyor,  which  distributes  and  discharges 
them  to  the  storage  room  below.  The  other  picks  off  all  rags  and  tosses  them 
to  the  storage  bins.  The  material  left  on  the  belt,  consisting  of  sticks,  corn- 
cobs and  miscellaneous  rubbish  that  would  not  pass  through  the  preliminary 
screen,  is  discharged  to  a  chute  that  leads  to  a  rubbish  car.  This  material  is 
deposited  on  a  dump. 

"  Corn  husk,  which  fortunately  comes  only  two  or  three  months  in  the 
year,  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  materials  to  put  through  the  plant,  and  is 
practically  worthless  as  a  tankage  content  excepting  for  the  small  amount  of 
potash  it  contains.  It  is  proposed  at  this  plant  to  pick  the  corn  husk  out  of 
the  green  garbage  at  the  dock  and  char  it  in  a  revolving  drum,  thus  eliminating 
it  from  the  conveyors  and  reducers  and  also  conserving  the  potash  content 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  483 

"  The  tankage  that  passes  through  the  meshes  of  the  preliminary  screen 
is  chuted  to  a  scraper-conveyor  that  distributes  the  material  to  a  row  of  four 
revolving  screens  that  are  duplicates  of  the  preliminary  screen,  excepting 
that  the  mesh  is  much  finer.  Material  that  passes  over  the  ends  of  these  final 
screens  is  discharged  onto  a  belt  conveyor  provided  with  a  magnetic  head 
pulley.  This  pulley  removes  all  particles  of  iron,  such  as  hairpins  and  knives 
and  forks.     The  amount  of  iron  recovered  is  less  than  0.25%  of  the  tankage. 

"  From  this  belt  conveyor  the  material  passes  to  a  scraper-conveyor 
that  moves  the  material  to  two  dry-grinding  pans.  These  consist  of  heavy 
cast-iron  bowls,  9  ft.  in  diameter,  in  which  the  material  is  ground  by  a  pair  of 
heavy  revolving  cast-iron  rollers  whose  weight  is  sufficient  to  grind  anything 
short  of  steel  ball  bearings.  The  ground  material  is  discharged  onto  a  belt 
conveyor  and  thence  to  a  screw  conveyor  that  carries  the  material  to  a  ver- 
tical bucket  elevator.  From  the  elevator  the  material  chutes  to  a  scraper 
conveyor  which  carries  it  back  to  the  screens  for  rescreening.  It  will  be  noted 
that  at  this  point  there  is  a  complete  cycle,  so  that  all  material  passing  through 
the  preliminary  screen  is  either  screened  through  the  final  screens  or  removed 
by  the  magnetic  separator.  Occasionally  there  are  large  pieces  of  brass,  etc., 
that  will  neither  grind  nor  separate.  These  are  removed  by  hand  from  the 
dry  pans  or  from  one  of  the  belt  conveyors. 

"  The  material  that  passes  through  the  final  screens  is  finished  tankage,  and 
is  transferred  to  an  80Xl00-ft.  storage  house  by  a  series  of  conveyors  and  ele- 
vators so  arranged  that  it  can  be  completely  filled. 

"  All  tankage  is  shipped  from  the  plant  in  boats,  so  there  is  no  necessity 
for  bagging.  The  tankage  is  dropped  from  the  storehouse  floor  to  two  par- 
allel belt  conveyors  which  discharge  onto  inclined  belt  conveyors  leading  to 
swivel  spouts  placed  on  the  dock.  The  spouts  fmally  deliver  the  tankage 
into  the  holds  of  the  boats. 

"  A  narrow-gage  industrial  railway  connects  the  various  departments  of 
the  plant.  It  is  equipped  with  gasoline  locomotives  and  standard  contractor's 
dump  cars.  This  railroad  was  used  to  good  advantage  during  the  construc- 
tion of  the  plant  and  is  also  used  for  the  wasting  of  rubbish  and  for  fetching 
coal  from  the  storage  piles. 

"  Commercial  electric  power  has  been  used  throughout  the  plant  for  driv- 
ing machinery,  conveyors,  and  salt-water  rotary  pumps. 

"  Steam  is  used  in  the  reducers,  stills  and  reciprocating  pumps  from  a 
55Xl40-ft.  boiler  house  containing  five  610-h.p.  water-tube  boilers.  The 
stack  for  the  boilers  is  of  concrete,  19  ft.  in  diameter  by  203  ft.  high. 

"  Coal  for  the  boilers  is  unloaded  from  the  barges  by  a  clamshell  bucket 
and  placed  in  a  hopper  on  the  dock.  The  coal  received  is  'run-of-mine'  and  is 
fed  by  a  double-plunger  feeder  into  a  two-roll  crusher  that  reduces  it  to 
the  proper  size  for  the  stokers.  The  coal  hopper  is  placed  close  to  a  hopper 
for  receiving  garbage  so  that  the  same  grab-bucket  can  unload  either  coal  or 


"  From  the  crusher  the  coal  drops  to  a  belt  conveyer  that  travels  up  and 
alongside  the  reducer  building  and  deposits  the  coal  on  a  conveyor  at  right 
angles  that  travels  on  an  incline  to  a  position  over  ttie  bunkers  in  the  boiler 
house.     Two  stationary  trippers  are  placed  in  this  belt,  outside  of  the  boiler 


484     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

house,  so  that  coal  may  be  stored  on  the  ground.  The  local  industrial  rail- 
road carries  this  coal  to  the  boiler  house  on  a  track  provided  for  the  purpose. 
A  depressed  track  of  the  industrial  railway  leads  under  the  stokers,  so  that 
ashes  drop  directly  into  dump  cars. 

"  The  absence  of  railroad  communication  necessitated  the  construction  of 
large  storage  containers  for  both  solvent  and  finished  products.  This  is  par- 
ticularly true  of  the  grease-storage  tank,  which  is  55  ft.  in  diameter  by  30  ft. 
high,  and  of  the  grease  barreling  house. 

"  In  the  barreling  house  are  placed  eight  10X23-ft.  vertical  steel  tanks, 
into  which  the  grease  is  pumped  before  barreling.  These  tanks  have  conical 
bottoms  and  the  draw-off  pipe  for  the  finished  grease  is  well  up  on  the  side. 
The  grease  is  pumped  into  these  tanks  and  allowed  to  settle.  The  heavy 
grease  and  impurities  settle  to  the  bottom  whOe  the  pure  and  lighter  grease  is 
drawn  off  to  the  barrels  for  shipment  to  be  used  in  the  manufacture  of  glycerine, 
soap,  candles,  etc.  The  building  is  of  concrete  and  brick,  and  is  100X100  ft. 
It  is  placed  near  the  dock  to  minimize  handling  of  the  barrels.  A  completely 
equipped  chemical  laboratory  occupies  one  corner  of  the  building.  Elsewhere 
there  is  a  30Xl20-ft.  machine  and  repair  shop." 

The  plant  worked  satisfactorily,  and  without  any  offensive  odors, 
until  1919,  when  war  prices  caused  financial  difficulties  for  the  com- 
pany, and  a  consequent  failure  to  maintain  the  works  in  proper 
operating  condition.  This  resulted  in  the  escape  of  gases  and  odors 
sufficient  to  cause  a  public  nuisance.  The  inefficient  condition  was 
increased  by  the  failure  of  the  company  to  enlarge  the  works  to  such 
an  extent  as  to  keep  pace  with  the  gradual  increase  in  the  quantity  of 
garbage,  and  the  peak  loads  could  not  be  treated  properly.  It  has 
also  been  reported  that  there  was  difficulty  in  securing  the  requisite 
labor.  As  a  result  the  company's  affairs  were  placed  in  the  hands  of  a 
receiver,  and  the  garbage  was  again  taken  to  sea  and  there  dumped. 

2.  Los  Angeles,  Cal. — During  1914  a  Cobwell  type  of  garbage 
reduction  plant,  having  a  capacity  of  175  tons  daily,  was  built  in  Los 
Angeles,  under  a  contract  between  the  City  and  Mr.  C.  D.  Crouch, 
by  which  the  city  receives  51  cents  a  ton  for  all  garbage  delivered  to 
the  plant.  Figs.  119  and  120  show  a  general  plan  and  a  view  of  the 
works.  The  following  description  is  condensed  from  an  account  *  by 
Mr.  Seward  C.  Simons,  Assistant  Engineer  during  the  construction 
of  the  plant. 

The  garbage  is  delivered  to  the  plant  in  wagons  having  removable 
steel  bodies  which  are  emptied  into  a  garbage  bin  or  dump  by  an  over- 
head crane. 

From  the  garbage  dump  the  material  is  raked  on  a  scraper  conveyor 
which  carries  it  across  to  the  reducer  building.  This  building  con- 
tains 20  reducers,  which  form  the  central  part  of  the  system.     The 

*  Municipal  Journal,  June  10,  1915. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 


485 


Fig.  119. — General  Plan  of  Reduction  Plant,  Cobwell  Process,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 


Fig.  120. — View  of  Reduction  Plant,  Los  Angeles,  Cal. 


486    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

scraper  conveyor  passes  along  the  center  of  this  building  near  the  roof, 
and  feeds  the  garbage  into  the  reducers  through  movable  chutes. 

This  system  of  reduction,  which  is  known  as  the  Cobwell,  was  first 
developed  by  the  C.  0.  Bartlett  and  Snow  Company,  the  general 
contractor  for  the  plant.  The  reducer  is  a  steam-jacketed,  cylin- 
drical apparatus,  8  ft.  in  diameter  and  4  ft.  high.  The  inside  is  fitted 
with  an  agitating  device  rotated  by  gears  placed  on  the  upper  portion 
of  the  apparatus.  Each  reducer  holds  about  3^  tons  of  garbage  per 
charge.  As  soon  as  the  reducer  is  filled,  a  solvent  known  as  cobolene 
(a  petroleum  product  not  greatly  different  from  naphtha)  enters  in 
sufficient  quantities  to  cover  the  mass,  and  live  steam  at  a  pressure 
of  85  lb.  per  square  inch  is  admitted  to  the  jacketed  walls  and  bottoms, 
after  which  the  stirring  device  is  started.  Connected  with  the 
reducer  is  a  large  vapor  pipe  running  to  a  condenser.  The  principle 
of  the  operation  depends  on  the  fact  that  water  is  vaporized  at  a  lower 
temperature  when  evaporated  along  with  a  solvent  having  a  low 
boiling  point.  As  the  water  and  solvent  are  evaporated  together, 
the  solvent  is  separated  by  gravity  and  returns  to  the  reducer,  and 
the  water,  which  is  perfectly  clear,  flows  to  the  sewer,  the  operation 
being  continued  until  a  test  shows  that  all  the  water  has  been  removed 
and  the  solvent  is  running  over  clear. 

The  material  is  now  dry  except  for  the  solvent  and  the  grease,  the 
latter,  by  this  time,  being  entirely  free  and  dissolved  in  the  solvent. 
The  solvent  and  grease  are  then  drained  from  the  reducer  to  a  still, 
from  which  the  solvent  can  readily  be  driven  off  and  the  grease 
recovered.  When  the  last  traces  of  solvent  have  been  removed  by 
further  heat,  the  garbage  is  discharged  through  a  door  in  the  side  of 
the  apparatus  by  using  the  agitating  device.  The  whole  operation 
in  the  reducer  requires  from  ten  to  sixteen  hours. 

The  matter  discharged  from  the  reducer,  known  as  tankage,  falls 
from  the  door  of  the  reducer  on  a  scraper  conveyor  which  carries  it 
to  a  second  conveyor  and  thence  to  the  warehouse.  At  the  ware- 
house the  tankage  is  passed  through  a  rotary  screen,  any  material 
which  is  not  fine  enough  being  ground  in  a  special  rotary  grinder,  and 
the  finished  product,  ready  for  sacking,  is  delivered  by  a  screw  con- 
veyor. 

At  the  works  there  is  also  an  equipment  for  sorting  rubbish  and  a 
furnace  for  burning  the  combustible  portion  which  has  no  market  value. 

3.  Cleveland,  Ohio. — The  present  Cleveland  plant  is  a  develop- 
ment from  experiences  with  a  number  of  types  of  apparatus.  The 
works  are  at  Willow,  2  miles  south  of  the  southerly  city  limits  and 
about  9  miles  from  the  garbage  loading  station  in  the  city.  The 
first  works  were  built  by  the  Newbury  Reduction  Company  in  1898. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  487 

The  process  consisted  of  cooking,  followed  by  hydraulic  pressing. 
The  dry  tankage  recovered  amounted  to  8  or  10%,  and  the  grease  to 
slightly  more  than  2%  of  the  original  weight  of  garbage. 

The  city  bought  the  plant  in  1905,  and,  under  the  guidance  of 
Mr.  W.  J.  Springborn,  established  the  Edson  process.  Its  distinctive 
feature  was  the  use  of  steam  jackets  and  mechanical  stirring  devices 
in  cooking  and  drying,  but  it  was  found  to  be  slow  and  too  costly. 
The  plant,  therefore,  was  remodeled,  and  is  described  as  follows:* 

"  The  old  method  of  unloading  the  garbage  from  tank  wagon  bodies  by  a 
crane  has  been  abandoned,  and  there  is  now  provided  a  green  garbage  building 
where  the  garbage  cars  of  special  type  are  emptied.  This  building  is  a  brick 
structure,  100  ft.  long,  32  ft.  wide,  and  30  ft.  high.  The  cars  enter  the  build- 
ing on  an  elevated  track  about  12  ft.  above  the  floor  level,  and  are  dumped  by 
chain  hoists.  A  large  quantity  of  the  free  water  contained  in  the  garbage  is 
drained  off  through  suitable  openings,  and  at  present  is  discharged  directly 
into  the  river.  This  green  garbage  building  is  a  short  distance  from  the  main 
building,  to  the  top  story  of  which  the  garbage  is  carried  by  scraper  conveyor, 
discharging  through  chutes  into  the  digesters.  There  are  sixteen  new  digesters 
in  the  remodeled  plant,  all  the  old  ones  having  been  removed.  The  digesters 
are  each  54  in.  in  diameter  and  14  ft.  deep,  and  are  constructed  of  f-in.  riveted 
steel  plates,  the  interior  being  lined  with  2-in.  cypress  lumber.  Each  digester 
is  provided  witTi  a  false  bottom  consisting  of  a  perforated  metal  disk.  On  the 
side  of  the  digester,  just  above  the  false  bottom,  is  a  door  for  removing  the 
tankage,  and  a  coil  of  steam  piping  is  placed  immediately  below  the  false 
bottom  through  which  the  steam  for  cooking  is  applied.  Steam  is  admitted 
directly  to  the  material,  for  a  period  of  six  hours,  at  a  pressure  of  70  to  80  lb. 
After  digestion  is  completed,  steam  pressure  is  applied  at  the  top,  and  the  free 
liquor  is  driven  off  through  a  connection  at  the  bottom,  and  conveyed  to  set- 
tling tanks,  where  the  grease  rises  to  the  top  and  is  skimmed  off.  The  liquor 
from  the  bottom  of  the  settling  tanks  is  wasted  into  the  river. 

"  The  tankage  from  the  digesters  is  removed  in  specially  constructed  cars, 
from  which  it  is  discharged  into  a  conveyor  leading  to  the  driers.  The  Edson 
driers  used  in  connection  with  the  old  process  are  now  used  to  dry  the  tankage 
partly.  Three  driers  are  provided,  each  of  which  is  of  such  capacity  as  to 
receive  two  digesters  full  at  a  charge.  The  material  is  dried  during  a  period 
of  somewhat  more  than  two  hours,  with  a  steam  pressure  in  the  jacket  of 
from  70  to  80  lb.,  corresponding  to  about  320°  Fahr.  After  discharge  from  the 
Edson  driers  the  tankage  contains  about  40%  of  moisture. 

"  From  the  Edson  driers  the  material  is  conveyed  to  a  final  drier,  which  is 
the  design  of  Mr.  E.  S.  Peck,  former  superintendent  of  the  works.  This  drier  is 
30  ft.  long  and  4  ft.  6  in.  in  diameter,  and  is  set  at  an  angle  slightly  inclined 
from  the  horizontal,  so  that  the  material  passes  through  it  continuously  by 
gravity.  The  drier  has  a  2^-in.  steam  jacket  around  the  outside  and  a  12-in. 
steam  drum  extending  through  its  center.     It  is  also  provided  with  a  hot  blast, 

*  "  Report  on  Collection  and  Disposal  of  City  Waste  in  Ohio,"  Ohio  State  Board  of 
Health,  1910. 


488    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

the  air  being  heated  by  a  system  of  steam  coils  at  the  discharge  end  of  the  drier 
and  drawn  by  a  fan  at  the  charging  end.  The  cyhndrical  body  of  the  drier  is 
revolved  on  roller  bearings,  the  power  being  supplied  by  a  motor.  During 
drying,  steam  is  applied  in  the  jacket  and  drum  at  70  or  80  lb.  pressure,  and  the 
hot-air  blast  is  applied  at  a  temperature  of  about  250°  Fahr.  By  passage 
through  this  drier  the  moisture  content  of  the  tankage  is  reduced  to 
about  5%. 

"  After  drying,  the  material  is  conveyed  to  the  percolator  building,  a  short 
distance  from  the  main  building.  It  contains  the  percolator  and  two  grease 
separators.  The  percolator  is  of  a  special  design,  also  devised  by  Mr.  Peck, 
and  consists  of  a  steel  cylinder,  8  ft.  in  diameter  and  15  ft.  long,  set  horizontally, 
and  resting  on  bearings  on  which  it  may  be  revolved.  An  opening  is  provided 
at  the  top,  through  which  the  charge  of  tankage  is  admitted.  It  is  usual 
to  fill  the  percolator  two-thirds  full  of  tankage.  It  is  then  flooded  with  naph- 
tha introduced  at  the  top,  and,  after  standing  about  one-half  hour,  the  naphtha 
is  withdrawn  and  the  percolator  again  flooded  with  fresh  naphtha.  This 
process  is  repeated  until  the  color  of  the  naphtha  indicates  that  the  grease  has 
been  almost  completely  removed.  After  the  last  flooding  of  naphtha  is  with- 
drawn the  percolator  is  turned  over  and  steam  at  from  10  to  15  lb.  pressure  is 
passed  through  the  tankage  to  remove  traces  of  naphtha.  The  charge  is  then 
dropped  to  the  floor  from  the  percolator.  The  steaming  adds  about  10%  of 
moisture  to  the  tankage,  but  this  is  not  considered  objectionable.  The  tank- 
age is  carried  in  a  conveyor  to  a  revolving  screen  and,  after  screening,  is  ready 
for  shipment.     The  screen  tailings  are  dumped  near  the  plant. 

"  The  naphtha  containing  the  grease  is  conducted  to  two  separating  tanks. 
These  are  horizontal  cylinders,  12  ft.  long  and  6  ft.  in  diameter,  and  have  a 
steam  coil  along  the  bottom.  The  naphtha  is  evaporated,  and  the  vapors  are 
condensed  and  stored  for  use  again.  The  grease  is  withdrawn  and  stored  for 
shipment." 

4,  Columbus,  Ohio. — One  of  the  best  of  the  garbage  reduction 
plants  was  built  in  Columbus  in  1907,  and  was  put  into  operation  in 
1910.  It  has  a  rated  capacity  of  160  tons  per  day.  The  following  is 
condensed  from  a  description  by  Osborn,*  who  was  in  charge  of  the 
construction: 

The  reduction  plant  is  about  4  miles  south  of  the  center  of  the  city,  on  the 
Scioto  River,  and  near  the  sewage  purification  works.  The  railroad  tracks  at 
the  plant  are  on  top  of  the  levee  which  surrounds  the  building  site,  and  about 
10  ft.  above  the  ground  floor  of  the  buildings.  This  elevation  allows  all  mate- 
rial coming  to  the  plant  to  be  discharged  from  the  cars  by  gravity. 

At  the  plant  there  are  four  buildings,  the  main  building,  the  green  gar- 
bage building,  a  small  office  building,  and  a  stable.  The  garbage  when 
delivered  at  the  plant  is  weighed  on  railway  track  scales  and  then  run  into  the 
green  garbage  building.  The  body  of  the  car  is  then  turned  on  trunnions  by 
power  hoists,  and  the  contents  of  the  ca'-  are  discharged  on  the  floor  below. 
The  free  water  is  drained  off  through  a  gutter  extending  the  fuU  length  of  the 

*  Engineering  Record,  November  19,  1910. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  489 

building  and  covered  witJi  perforated  plates.  The  swill  water  from  the  gutter 
is  drained  into  a  catch-Vjasin,  from  which  it  is  discharged  into  the  grease-sep- 
arating tanks,  after  which  it  is  evaporated.  The  garbage  is  sorted  and  shov- 
eled into  a  24-in.  scraper  conveyor  whicii  extends  the  full  length  of  the  green 
garbage  building.  Connecting  this  building  with  the  main  building  is  an 
inclined  truss  which  carries  the  conveyor  to  the  top  of  the  main  building  and 
over  the  tops  of  the  digesters,  into  which  the  garbage  is  discharged  directly. 

There  are  eight  digesters,  and  they  have  a  capacity  of  from  10  to  12  tons  of 
garbage.     The  inside  is  lined  with  cement  and  tile,  l^  in.  thick. 

The  steam  is  turned  on,  and  spreads  and  circulates  through  the  mass. 
When  cooked,  the  garbage  is  discharged  through  a  large  valve  into  the 
receiving  hopper,  which  is  connected  directly  to  the  roller  press. 

The  vapors  which  arise  from  the  mass  when  dropped  into  the  receiving  hop- 
per are  conducted  by  a  vent  line  to  a  condenser,  which,  with  the  condenser 
for  the  digesters,  is  connected  to  a  vapor-tight  steel  hot  well.  Any  odors  that 
are  carried  by  the  gases  and  not  taken  up  in  the  condensers  are  trapped  in  the 
hot  well  and  then  passed  by  a  vent  line  to  the  boiler  furnaces. 

The  time  required  in  cooking  varies  with  the  qualitj^  of  the  garbage,  but 
averages  about  sLx  hours  with  the  steam  at  from  60  to  70  lb.  gauge  pressure  as 
it  enters  the  digester. 

The  presses,  which  are  connected  to  the  receiving  hopper,  are  of  the 
continuous  roller  type,  and  were  designed  by  Edgerton  especiall}'  for  hand- 
ling garbage.  They  are  connected  directly  to  the  bottom  of  the  receiving 
hoppers,  so  that  the  material  from  the  digesters  passes  through  the  press 
before  being  exposed.  The  press  is  provided  with  upper  and  lower  conveying 
aprons.  The  upper  apron  acts  as  the  bottom  of  the  receiving  hopper,  carries 
the  material  through  the  feeding  rolls,  and  discharges  it  on  the  lower  apron. 
The  lower  apron  passes  between  six  cast-iron  rolls,  arranged  in  pairs.  The 
rolls  are  28  in.  in  diameter,  and  are  controlled  by  heavy  steel  springs  so  that 
they  may  be  regulated  to  any  desired  pressure,  depending  on  the  quantity  of 
material  to  be  passed  through. 

The  pressed  material  is  discharged  at  the  front  of  the  press  into  a  scraper 
conveyor  which  carries  it  to  the  second  floor  of  the  drying  department.  The 
pressing  rolls  are  driven  by  chains,  and  the  press  is  constructed  so  that  one 
apron,  or  both,  can  be  operated  at  the  same  time.  On  the  feeding  roll  is  a 
safety  device  to  protect  the  press,  should  any  foreign  substance,  too  large  to 
pass  through  or  too  hard  to  be  crushed  by  the  rolls,  get  back  of  the  rolls. 
The  press  can  be  reversed,  so  as  to  remove  any  material,  if  desired,  from 
under  the  rolls. 

The  water  and  grease  flow  back  from  the  press  through  a  covered  conduit 
to  the  catch-basins  in  the  grease-separating  room,  below  the  floor.  The  water 
and  grease  are  pumped  from  the  settling  basins  into  a  battery  of  tanks,  where 
the  grease  is  separated  by  gravity.  There  are  six  separating  tanks.  The 
grease  rising  in  the  first  tank  overflows  into  the  second,  and  from  the  second 
to  the  third,  and  so  on  through  all  the  tanks,  with  the  largest  quantity  of  grease 
collecting  in  the  sixth  tank,  from  which  it  is  drawn  off  through  a  pipe  line  into 
one  of  two  treating  tanks. 

The  grease  drawn  off  from  the  separating  tank  is  heated  in  the  treating 


490     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

tanks,  in  order  to  separate  the  impurities,  and  then  pumped  into  storage  tanks 
for  shipment.  There  are  four  grease  storage  tanks  with  a  total  capacity  of 
15,000  gal.  They  are  piped  so  that  the  grease  can  be  pumped  into  any  of 
the  tanks  or  be  drawn  off  and  discharged  into  railway  tank  cars  for  shipment. 

The  liquor  as  it  comes  from  the  presses  carries  more  or  less  solids  in  sus- 
pension. These  solids  are  known  as  muck  and  silt,  and  are  drawn  off  by  a 
Magma  pump  and  discharged  into  a  muck  tank,  from  which  they  pass  through 
a  screw  press  into  catch-basins,  and  the  solids  are  placed  on  the  conveyor 
leading  to  the  drier  room. 

The  tank-water  from  the  storage  tank  goes  to  a  triple-effect  evaporator, 
so  as  to  recover  the  5  to  7%  of  solids  in  solution.  The  evaporator  is  capable 
of  concentrating  1500  gal.  of  tank-water  per  hour. 


Fig.  121. — View  of  Reduction  Plant,  Columbus,  Ohio., 

The  solids  from  the  roller  presses,  after  they  are  delivered  to  the  drying 
department,  are  fed  into  a  revolving  cylindrical  drier.  The  dry  material  is 
elevated  to  the  second  floor  and  passed  through  a  revolving  screen.  The 
screened  tankage  is  then  placed  in  the  vacuum  or  mixing  driers  and  the  con- 
centrated syrup  from  the  evaporator  is  added.  The  dry  fibrous  material  acts 
as  a  filler,  enables  the  moisture  in  the  syrup  to  be  driven  off,  and  the  fertilizing 
value  to  be  increased.  When  dry  the  material  is  discharged  from  the  drier 
into  a  spiral  conveyor  connected  to  an  elevator  which  discharges  it  on  the 
third  floor,  where  it  is  stored  until  shipment. 

The  city  has  since  constructed  a  percolating  plant  to  be  used  in  the  extrac- 
tion of  grease  from  the  dry  tankage,  as  only  about  one-half  of  the  available 
grease  is  recovered  by  the  press.  It  consists  of  ex-tractor,  vaporizers,  con- 
densers, and  storage  tanks,  and  is  in  a  special  small  building.  A  general  view 
of  the  plant  is  shown  in  Fig.  121. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  491 

5.  Chicago,  111. — The  plant  of  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company 

was  purchased  by  the  City  in  1913  at  the  reduced  price  of  S279,689. 
Since  then  it  has  been  very  largely  remodeled  by  the  City.  A  brief 
description  of  the  present  plant,*  made  up  chiefly  from  published 
articles  by  Col.  H.  A.  Allen,  the  designer,  follows: 

Garbage  is  brought  to  the  plant  in  specially  designed  boxes,  by 
wagons  and  barges.  The  wagon  bodies  are  lifted  by  cranes,  and  their 
contents  are  discharged  into  large  concrete  bins  with  hopper  bottoms 
fitted  with  large  swing  gates  on  horizontal  openings.  From  these 
hoppers  the  garbage  is  elevated  by  conveyors  to  the  top  of  the  drier 
building. 

Generally,  the  garbage  is  first  run  through  a  crusher  to  smash  cans 
of  condemned  foods  and  to  break  up  other  large  materials  for  more 
eflScient  drying.  The  material  from  the  crusher  is  then  fed  into  driers 
in  which  its  moisture  content  is  reduced  to  about  10%  or  less.  The 
dried  material  is  fed  into  percolators  where  it  is  treated  with  a  grease 
solvent.  The  grease-saturated  solvent  is  then  drawn  off  and  the 
solvent  distilled  out  and  condensed  for  re-use,  the  grease  being  treated 
and  stored  for  shipment.  Steam  is  then  turned  into  the  percolator 
to  drive  off  any  residual  solvent,  after  which  the  tankage,  containing 
about  26%  of  moisture,  is  withdrawn  and  put  through  final  driers,  in 
which  the  moisture  is  reduced  to  from  6  to  8%.  The  tankage  is  then 
screened,  milled,  and  finally  stored  for  shipment. 

This  so-called  "  drier  system  "  was  selected  by  Col.  Allen  for  the 
following  reasons,  as  stated  by  him : 

"  My  investigation  convinced  me  that  one  great  cause  of  offense  at  the 
plant  of  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company  was  due  to  the  use  of  direct-heat 
driers  and  consequent  burning  or  carbonizing  of  certain  greases  and  materials, 
such  as  hair  and  flesh.  It  would  seem  that  certain  odors  thus  formed  are  not 
soluble  in  water,  therefore  not  readily  washed  or  scrubbed.  This  scorching 
action  not  only  was  the  cause  of  offense,  but  also,  I  believed,  the  cause  of  loss 
in  the  value  of  by-products. 

"  The  result  was  the  installation  of  the  more  costly  direct-indirect  heat 
driers. 

"  As  predicted,  when  using  the  indirect-heat  driers,  not  only  has  the  neces- 
sity for  scrubbing  practically  been  eliminated,  but  the  produced  tankage  and 
grease  are  better,  with  consequent  mcreased  values.  The  garbage  is  dried 
from  7.5%  moisture  to  10%  or  less  in  one  cylinder." 

In  order  to  eliminate  offensive  odors,  each  drier  is  provided  with  a 
"  petticoat  "  stack  consisting  of  a  series  of  concentrically  placed  steel 
cylinders,   each   one  larger  than   the   preceding  lower   one.     These 

*  The  old  plant  is  described  in  Engineering  News,  Vol.  59,  p.  278. 


492     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

stacks  promote  commingling  of  outside  fresh  air  with  the  escaping 
gases  from  the  driers,  thus  cooling  them  and  throwing  down  a  certain 
quantity  of  moisture  which  carries  with  it  some  of  the  fine  suspended 


:Sil  ftt-  '■]!', 


'Crushers  on  I  -Floor 


,.4^JH IL,  ^««?o  'J'"^^^ 


BepairShcp 


Fig.  122. — General  Plan,  Reduction  Plant,  Chicago,  111. 


\j}ried  Garbage 
yrom  Dryer  BUJg. 


Fig.  123. — Cross-section,  Chicago  Reduction  Plant. 

matter.     The  fresh  air  also  causes  some  dilution.     The  stacks,  how- 
ever, are  provided  with  suitable  sprays  for  use  in  emergency. 

The  plant  is  able  to  treat  about  1200  tons  of  garbage  per  twenty- 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE 


493 


four  hours,  and,  during  1917,  handled  an  average  of  600  tons  per 
twenty-four  hours. 

Fig.  122  is  a  general  plan  of  the  Chicago  plant,  Figs.  123  and   124 
are  cross-sections,  and  Fig.  125  is  a  longitudinal  section. 


^b 


Fig.  124. — Cross-section,  Chicago  Reduction   Plant. 

6.  Boston,  Mass. — The  first  reduction  plant  for  Boston  was  built 
in  1895,  on  Mt.  Vernon  Street  in  Dorchester.  The  Arnold  process 
v/as  used,  from  plans  furnished  by  Edgerton.  The  plant  went  into 
operation  in  January,  but  was  shut  down  on  March  21st  because 
of  the  nuisances  created. 


494     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


A  second  plant,  using  the  Arnold  process,  was  built  at  the  "  Cow 
Pasture  "  in  1898.  Within  a  radius  of  2  miles  of  it  there  was  a  popu- 
lation of  from  50,000  to  75,000.  It  cost  upwards  of  $300,000,  but,  as 
there  were  continual  complaints  of  nuisance,  it  was  removed  in  1900 
to  Spectacle  Island,  about  3  miles  out  in  Boston  Harbor.  This  plant 
was  used  until  1912,  when  it  was  entirely  rebuilt,  because  of  the 
high  cost  of  operation  and  the  production  of  odors,  which  were  annoy- 
ing at  the  main  land.     The  new  plant  is  described  briefly  as  follows:* 


Emergen^ 


Fig.  125. — Longitudinal  Section,  Chicago  Reduction  Plant. 

The  plant  is  on  the  westerly  side  of  Spectacle  Island.  There  are 
four  principal  buildings:  The  main  building,  containing  the  digester 
house,  evaporation  room,  drier  room,  power  plant,  and  incinerator; 
the  percolator  house  and  two  storehouses.  Gasoline  used  in  the 
percolation  process  is  stored  in  tanks  out  of  doors,  about  100  ft. 
from  the  percolator  house. 

On  arriving  at  the  wharf,  the  garbage  is  transferred  from  the  scows 
to  the  main  building.  The  green-garbage  conveying  equipment  con- 
sists of  a  48-in.  pan  conveyor,  running  45  ft.  per  minute,  and  a  24-in. 
scraper  conveyor,  running  50  ft.  per  minute.  The  capacity  of  each 
conveyor  is  100  tons  per  hour.  The  pan  conveyor  receives  the  green 
garbage  from  the  bin  and  carries  it  upward  through  a  picking  gallery 


*  Abstracted  from  Engineering  Record,  1913,  p.  512. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  405 

where  foreign  materials  are  culled  out.  The  garbage  is  then  delivered 
on  the  scraper  conveyor,  which  is  inclosed,  and  is  carried  by  an  inclined 
truss  to  the  top  of  the  digester  house. 

The  digesters  are  in  two  rows  of  eight  each.  Each  unit  has  a 
capacity  of  13  tons,  is  90  in.  in  inside  diameter  and  19  ft.  6  in.  high. 
Through  l|-in.  pipe  connections,  live  steam  is  admitted  at  a  pressure 
of  from  7.S  to  90  lb.  per  sq.  in.  for  cooking. 

In  operating  the  digesters,  the  steam  is  turned  on  for  an  hour 
and  then  shut  off  for  an  equal  period,  this  cycle  being  repeated  on  the 
average  for  ten  hours.  If  the  garbage  is  old  and  soft  it  cooks  much 
more  rapidly  than  when  green  and  stiff,  and  the  reduction  of  weight 
by  evaporation  slightly  increases  the  nominal  percentage  of  grease 
obtained  and  reported.  The  degree  of  digestion  is  determined 
by  loosening  the  inlet  door.  The  material  when  cooked  has  an  odor 
resembling  that  of  licorice.  There  are  two  receiving  tanks  under 
each  row  of  digesters,  each  tank  being  supplied  by  four  digesters. 
Directly  under  each  receiving  tank  there  are  two  presses.  The  green 
garbage  has  about  80%  of  moisture  when  delivered;  this  is  reduced 
to  about  50%  by  the  press  treatment,  and  by  subsequent  drying  to 
8  or  10%.  Each  press  has  a  capacity  of  from  5  to  6  tons,  the 
time  required  for  pressing,  including  filling,  being  from  five  to  six 
hours. 

The  tank-water  flows  into  a  row  of  settling  basins,  95  ft.  long  and 
11  ft.  6  in.  wide.  The  weir  system  and  the  independent  basin  S3^stem 
of  grease  separation  are  in  use.  The  basins  are  of  concrete  and  are 
lined  with  timber.  The  tank-water  flows  into  any  one  of  four  small 
receiving  basins,  where  the  first  grease  separation  by  flotation  occurs. 
After  the  removal  of  grease,  the  tank-water  is  delivered  into  the  set- 
tling basins.  When  the  weir  system  is  used,  the  tank-water  is  pumped 
into  the  first  of  the  large  settling  basins,  where  a  further  separation 
occurs,  the  process  being  continued  in  the  succeeding  basins,  with  a 
diminishing  accumulation  of  grease  in  each.  Sludge  can  be  removed 
from  any  of  the  basins  by  a  centrifugal  pump  and  re-treated  in  the 
presses. 

The  greater  portion  of  the  grease  is  separated  in  the  receiving 
basins.  A  pump  near  the  first  large  settling  basin  delivers  the  grease 
to  a  battery  of  three  6600-gal.  treating  tanks.  At  these  tanks  the 
grease  is  heated  by  steam  coils,  to  separate  the  impurities,  and  is  then 
discharged  into  barrels  or  pumped  into  steel  storage  tanks  prior  to 
shipment. 

The  tankage  from  the  presses  is  discharged  on  the  floor  of  the 
pressroom  and  passes  to  an  18-in.  scraper  conveyor  which  carries  it 
to   the   charging   floor   directly   above   the   drying   equipment.     The 


496     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

tankage  enters  the  driers  through  charging  holes,  and  is  discharged 
at  the  lower  ends  of  the  driers  on  an  18-in.  scraper  conveyor,  which 
carries  it  to  the  upper  floor  of  the  percolator  building.  Here  it  is 
discharged  into  the  percolators.  The  garbage  contains  from  4  to  6% 
of  grease;  about  3%  is  removed  by  boiling  in  the  digesters  and  the 
remainder  by  the  percolation  process.  From  ten  to  twelve  hours 
are  required  for  treating  each  charge  of  tankage. 

Rubbish  is  also  taken  to  this  plant,  where  the  valuable  portions 
are  sorted  out  and  the  remainder  is  burned  in  a  high-temperature 
refuse  incinerator  having  a  capacity  of  40  tons  per  day.  The  inciner- 
ator furnishes  heat  for  a  250-h.p.  boiler,  which  supplies  about  15% 
of  the  steam  used  at  the  plant. 

7.  "Washington,  D.  C. — The  following  information,  relating  to  the 
first  year's  operation  of  the  municipal  garbage  reduction  works  of 
Washington,  is  taken  from  an  article  by  Mr.  F.  C.  Bamman,  in 
Engineering  News-Record  of  May  6,  1920: 

The  reduction  works  were  built  about  twenty  years  ago,  and  have 
been  in  operation  continuously.  The  process  used  is  cooking  by  steam 
in  sealed  digesters,  pressing  by  internal  steam  pressure  and  then  in 
hydraulic  rack  presses,  drying  the  pressed  cake  in  a  direct-heat  drier, 
and  passing  the  liquids  thus  extracted  through  settling  and  grease- 
skimming  basins.  Extraction  by  using  solvents  is  not  attempted, 
and  there  is  no  equipment  for  the  recovery  of  the  solids  contained  in 
the  liquids  from  the  presses. 

On  July  1,  1918,  the  District  took  over  the  complete  plant  of  the 
former  contractor  and  continued  the  work  practically  on  the  same 
lines. 

The  revenues  for  the  first  year  exceeded  the  expenses,  and  would 
show  a  small  profit,  according  to  most  methods  of  municipal  account- 
ing; yet,  when,  to  the  items  regarded  by  the  municipality  as  expenses 
are  added  those  other  unavoidable  items  which  a  private  company 
recognizes  as  expenses,  the  profits  are  much  less. 

The  relatively  poor  showing  of  the  plant  is  not  necessarily  a 
reflection  on  the  ability  of  the  municipal  officers  charged  with  its 
operation.  The  plant  had  been  allowed  to  deteriorate  by  the  com- 
pany during  the  closing  months  of  the  contract,  and  the  spirit  of  labor 
unrest,  high  labor  costs,  the  usual  legislative  "  red  tape"  limitations, 
the  big  decrease  in  prices  of  by-products,  etc.,  all  served  to  bring  about 
a  condition  detrimental  to  efficient  management. 

The  plant  is  isolated;  condensation  of  the  vapors  has  not  been 
necessary;  the  digesters  are  vented  directly  into  the  atmosphere;  and 
the  drier  fumes  undergo  no  treatment  to  relieve  them  of  odors. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  497 

The  main  building  contains  24  Chamberlain  digesters,  S  hydraulic 
rack  presses,  unloading  apparatus,  skimming  basins,  etc.  The  drier 
house,  with  a  single  direct-heat  drier,  is  about  100  ft.  away,  and  the 
pressed  cake  is  carried  from  the  presses  by  a  belt  conveyor.  The 
power  plant,  containing  six  boilers  (total,  450  h.p.),  is  between  the 
two  buildings. 

From  a  municipal  standpoint,  the  plant  is  far  from  satisfactory, 
and,  though  many  improvements  have  been  made,  the  District  officials 
regard  it  as  only  a  temporary  expedient.  The  changes  made  by  the 
municipality  include  improved  methods  of  unloading,  new  digesters, 
relocation  of  railway  siding,  etc.  Others  are  being  made  or  are  con- 
templated, but  these  are  only  intended  to  continue  operations  until 
a  permanent  method  of  disposal  is  determined. 

The  statement  of  expenditures,  fixed  charges,  revenue,  profits,  etc., 
by  Mr.  Bamman,  differs  in  several  respects  from  that  of  the  District 
officials,  but  this  is  explained  as  due  to  several  factors  which  should 
be  considered  carefully  in  making  comparisons  with  data  from  other 
plants.  For  example:  In  the  Washington  figures,  no  interest  on 
working  capital  has  been  included;  insurance  in  any  form  is  prohibited 
by  law;  no  taxes  are  paid;  general  office  expenses  properly  charge- 
able to  operation  are  not  included;  no  pro  rata  charge  has  been  made 
for  the  time  of  the  Supervisor;  the  salaries  and  considerable  expenses 
incidental  to  selling  by-products  and  keeping  accounts  are  not  included; 
neither  are  such  items  as  postage,  stationer}^,  telegraph,  and  tele- 
phone, the  jyro  rata  share  of  the  purchasing  department  chargeable 
to  reduction,  or  the  similar  amount  chargeable  because  of  auditors' 
expenses;  the  rental  charge  for  office  space  in  Washington;  the  pro 
rata  share  of  the  salaries  and  office  expenses  of  District  officials  superior 
to  the  Supervisor  of  city  refuse,  etc.  It  will  be  realized  at  once  that 
these  items  would  have  considerable  influence  on  the  cost  of  operating 
this  plant  as  a  purely  commercial  enterprise. 

The  prices  realized  for  grease  and  tankage  are  indicated  in  Tables 
137  and  138.  During  the  war,  garbage  grease  prices  rose  rapidly, 
due  to  its  glycerine  content,  which  is  about  10%.  Grease  contracts, 
generally,  expired  on  December  31st,  1918,  and,  the  armistice  having 
been  signed,  and  the  need  for  glycerine  explosives  no  longer  existing, 
many  plants  were  without  contracts,  or  had  to  sell  their  products 
practically  at  the  buyer's  offer.  In  the  District  plant  the  return 
was  reduced  by  nearly  one-half. 

Tankage  contracts  were  affected  in  the  same  way  by  the  release  from 
munition  purposes  of  nitrogen  carriers.  With  the  decrease  in  grease 
and  tankage  prices,  there  came,  also,  increases  in  the  cost  of  labor. 


498     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE    137. — Grease    Contracts, 
Washington  Garbage  Reduction  Plant,  July  1,  1918,  to  June  30,  1919 

(From  Engineering  News-Record,  May  6,  1920) 


Contract  prices  effective 

Price 

per 

pound, 

in 

cents 

Pounds 
sold, 
net 

Percentages  * 

Total  money 

received, 
f.o.b.  plant 

Moist- 
ure 

Insol- 
uble 

Un- 

saponi- 

fiable 

July-Dec,  1918 

January,  1919 

Feb.-March,  1919. . .  . 

April-May,  1919 

June,  1919 

Totals  for  year. .  . 

13f 
7.03 

5.28 
5.02 
6.55 

906,690 
156,300 
452,739 
397,513 
144,342 

1.62* 
1.56 

0.48* 
0.26 

2.23* 
2.19 

$121,887.88 

10,881.55 

23,706.79 

19,678.42 

9,282.80 

2,057,584 

.... 

$185,437.44 

*  Under  each  contract  3%  of  moisture,  impurities,  and  unsaponifiables  was  allowed. 

TABLE   138.— Tankage   Contracts, 
Washington  Garbage  Reduction  Plant,  July  1,  1918,  to  June  30,  1919 

(From  Engineering  News-Record,  May  6,  1920) 


Contract  prices  effective 

Ammonia, 
NH3 

Bone 

phosphate 

P2O5 

Potash, 
K2O 

Tons 
sold 

Total  money 
received 

July-December,  1918. 

January,  1919 

February-March,  1919 
April- June,  1919 

Totals  for  year . .  . 

$5.62 
2.75 
2.35 
2.25 

$0.10 
0.10 
0.10 
0.10 

$1.00 
0.60 
0.00 
0.00 

1637.82 
322.72 
631.16 

787.95 

$30,001.92* 
3,319.07* 
3,630.94 t 
4,619.63 t 

3379.65 

$41,571.56 

The  prices  given  are  per  ton  of  tankage  for  each  single  per  cent,  of  the  respective  items. 
*  F.  o.  b.  plant. 
t  Less  freight. 

There  was  an  increase  in  the  production  of  garbage  in  Washington 
during  the  war  period,  instead  of  a  decrease,  as  in  most  other  cities. 
The  totals  for  the  years  ending  June  30th  were: 

1916 52,202  tons 

1917 44,683  tons 

1918 48,843  tons 

1919 53,258  tons 

1920 52,800  tons 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  499 

This  increase,  without  doubt,  was  due  to  the  increased  population 
engaged  in  war  activities.  The  production  in  1919  was  greater  than 
in  1918,  which  condition  is  also  noted  in  most  other  cities,  for,  as  soon 
as  the  patriotic  need  for  food  conservation  ended,  high  prices  failed 
to  reduce  the  waste.  In  1920  the  production  of  garbage  was  241  lb. 
per  capita,  the  grease  extracted  was  1.76%,  and  the  tankage  was 
5.8%. 

From  articles  by  Maj.  F.  S.  Besson,  in  Engineering  News-Record 
of  December  2,  1920,  and  February  10,  1921,  the  following  informa- 
tion is  extracted:  Detailed  estimates  by  Maj.  Besson  indicate  that 
the  economy  of  establishing  a  farm  and  feeding  the  garbage  to  hogs 
would  be  doubtful.  Estimates  of  the  cost  of  building  and  operating 
a  new  reduction  plant  are  given,  also  the  cost  of  continuing  the  present 
plant,  but  with  necessary  extensions  and  improvements,  and  also 
betterment  of  the  transportation  facilities.  A  comparison  shows  that 
improving  the  present  works  is  much  more  economical  than  the 
establishment  of  a  new  plant,  the  figures  being: 

$0.05  per  ton  debit  with  present  plant, 
0.72  per  ton  debit  with  new  plant, 
0.88  per  ton  credit  with  present  plant  improved. 

Incidentally,  it  is  noted  that  no  provision  is  made  for  percolators. 
"  They  are  omitted  because  of  the  determination  that  the  value  of  the 
additional  grease  obtained  would  not  compensate  for  the  extra  fuel 
and  solvent  consumption  required  for  percolators. 

"A  prime  essential  in  the  disposal  of  the  garbage  of  a  municipality 
is  to  give  satisfactory  ser^dce  to  the  citizens.  Probable  profits  from 
by-products  of  the  disposal,  while  commanding  regard,  should  be 
of  secondary  consideration.  Entirely  satisfactory  results  can  be 
obtained  only  when  it  is  realized  fully  by  the  public  that  getting 
rid  of  the  garbage  of  a  city  is  a  function  in  a  class  with  the  disposal 
of  its  sewage.  If  this  had  been  realized  years  ago,  the  history  of 
garbage  disposal  in  the  first  cities  of  the  land  would  have  shown 
fewer  failures  and  less  disappointment." 

Table  139  is  a  summary  of  grease  and  tankage  analyses  of  Wash- 
ington garbage  from  July,  1918,  to  June,  1919,  inclusive. 

8.  Schenectady,  N.  Y. — A  tj^pical  but  smaller  plant,  using  the 
Chamberlain  process,  and  designed  for  the  reduction  of  40  tons  of 
garbage  in  ten  hours,  was  completed  at  Schenectady  in  1914.  The 
following  brief  description  is  condensed  from  the  Municipal  Journal, 
February  12,  1914: 

The  plant  consists  of  a  main  building,  a  small  receiving  building, 
with  a  hopper  and  a  condenser. 


500    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

A  conveyor  below  the  hopper  receives  the  garbage  and  carries  it 
to  the  top  floor,  from  which  it  is  fed  directly  to  any  one  of  six  digesters, 
in  which  it  is  cooked  about  eight  hours  by  admitting  steam  at  the 
bottom.  When  suflSciently  cooked,  as  much  of  the  liquor  as  possible 
is  drawn  off,  and  the  material  further  submitted  to  pressure  by  live 
steam.  The  liquor  flows  to  five  settling  tanks,  where  the  grease 
(about  half  of  that  in  the  original  garbage)  is  skimmed  off  and  sepa- 
rated from  the  water,  which  runs  to  a  sewer. 


TABLE  139. — Grease  and  Tankage  Analyses 

AT  Washington,  D.  C,  for  the  Year  July  1,  1918,  to  June  30,  1919, 

IN  Percentages  op  the  Weight  op  Garbage 

(From  Engineering  News-Reccrd,  May  6,  1920) 


Month 


Number 

of 
analy- 
ses 


Grease 


Moist- 
ure 


In- 
soluble 


Un- 
saponi- 
fiable 


Avail- 
able 

fat 


Tankage 


Am- 
monia 


Bone 
phos- 
phate 


Potash 


July 

August ... 
September 
October .  . 
November 
December . 
January . . 
February . , 
March .  .  . , 

April 

May 

June 


2.43 
1.41 
1.63 
1.98 
1.02 
1.31 
1.41 
1.26 
1.50 
1.38 
1.68 
2.35 


0.53 
0.48 
0.54 
0.55 
0.43 
0.39 
0.26 
0.32 
0.32 
0.43 
0.35 
0.83 


2.27 
2.58 
2.30 
2.30 
1.99 
2.12 
2.21 
2.16 
2.23 
2.43 
2.43 
2.55 


94.77 
95.33 
95.53 
95.17 
96.56 
96.18 
96.12 
96.26 
95.95 
95.76 
95.54 
94.27 


3.06 
2.80 
2.93 
2.86 
2.86 
3.12 
3.32 
3.04 
2.98 
3.08 
3.22 
3.10 


12.45 
10.53 
11.95 
11.36 
11.71 
11.80 
10.49 
9.57 
9.48 
10.62 
11.34 
11.30 


0.60 
0.36 
0.33 
0  41 
0.47 
0.54 
0.41 
0.35 
0.39 
0.29 
0.32 
0.33 


The  solid  matter  left  in  the  digesters  is  drawn  out  with  hoes 
directly  to  a  conveyor,  which  runs  between  the  two  rows  of  digesters, 
carries  the  solid  matter  toward  the  front  of  the  building  and  upward, 
and  discharges  it  into  a  mixer.  The  latter  breaks  up  any  lumps 
which  there  may  be,  mixes  the  material  thoroughly,  and  discharges 
it  into  a  direct-heat  drier. 

The  drier  consists  essentially  of  a  slowly  revolving  steel  shell,  the 
interior  of  which  has  a  series  of  curved  plates  or  fins.  These  are 
fastened  to  the  inside  of  the  shell,  and  lift  the  material  and  drop  it 
through  the  heat  supplied  by  the  furnace  in  front.     The  furnace  is 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  501 

fed  by  a  mechanical  stoker,  the  heat  passing  through  the  cyhnder  and 
out  at  the  other  end  through  a  large  flue  to  the  chimney. 

The  dried  material  is  carried  to  the  percolator.  As  there  may  be 
naphtha  fumes  in  the  vicinity  of  this,  and  as  in  drying  by  direct  heat, 
although  none  of  the  garbage  tankage  will  be  charred,  some  of  the 
light  foreign  substances  may  take  fire,  the  conveyor  discharges  the 
garbage  on  a  platform  in  the  digester  building,  from  which  (after 
blazing  paper,  rags,  etc.,  have  been  removed)  it  is  hoed  to  another 
conveyor,  parallel  to  and  about  3  ft.  from  the  other.  The  material  is 
then  carried  to  the  top  of  the  percolator  building  and  discharged  into 
a  rotary  percolator,  where  it  is  treated  with  a  solvent,  generally 
naphtha,  by  which  practically  all  the  remaining  half  of  its  grease 
content  is  removed.  The  naphtha,  with  the  contained  grease,  is 
drawn  off  into  a  storage  tank,  then  into  a  treating  tank,  where  the 
naphtha  is  vaporized  and  the  grease  is  reclaimed.  The  vapors  are 
condensed,  and  the  naphtha  is  again  used  in  the  percolators.  It  is 
found  economical  to  repeat  the  washing  in  the  percolators  four  or 
five  times.  In  this  operation  some  of  the  naphtha  is  held  in  suspen- 
sion in  the  tankage,  and  is  reclaimed  by  "steaming  out"  the  percolator 
with  live  steam,  and  thus  vaporizing  the  naphtha,  taking  it  to  the 
condenser,  and  into  naphtha  storage  tanks. 

The  tankage  which  has  been  washed  and  steamed  in  the  percolator 
is  discharged  on  a  conveyor  which  runs  under  the  percolator  to  a 
screen.  Here  any  large  lumps,  and  any  nails,  cans,  etc.,  are  separ- 
ated from  the  tankage.  These  tailings  are  now  placed  over  a  magnetic 
separator,  which  removes  the  metallic  matter.  The  tankage  is  ground 
in  a  Gardner  crusher,  then  returned  to  the  fine  material  which  has 
passed  through  the  screen,  and  both  are  conveyed  to  the  storage  room. 

H.  ADVANTAGES  AND  DISADVANTAGES 

There  are  advantages  and  disadvantages  in  the  reduction  process 
which  are  important  to  consider,  although  they  do  not,  of  course, 
apply  equally  to  every  locality.  They  are  summarized  below.  The 
relation  of  this  process  to  the  house  treatment  and  the  collection  has 
already  been  noted  in  Chapters  II  and  III. 

Advantages. — 1.  The  reduction  process  converts  the  organic 
matter  of  garbage,  which  is  putrescible,  into  grease  and  tankage, 
which  have  salable  values.  Osborn  stated  in  1914  that  twenty- 
five  reduction  plants  in  the  United  States  produced  annually  about 
60,000,000  lb.  of  grease  and  150,000  tons  of  tankage,  having  an 
average  market  value  of  $3,500,000. 

2.  Through   the   necessity   of  a   thorough   separation   of   garbage 


502    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

from  the  other  materials,  it  permits  advantage  to  be  taken  of  available 
dumping  areas,  if  there  are  any,  for  disposing  of  ashes  and  other  inert 
material  at  a  less  cost  for  collection  and  disposal. 

3.  If  the  reduction  method  is  found  to  be  more  economical  in  a 
given  case  than  other  methods,  and  suitable  and  safe  designs  can  be 
made  for  the  entire  project,  it  is  more  readily  adaptable,  on  account 
of  its  intricate  nature,  to  be  operated  for  business  purposes  by  a 
responsible  private  corporation  than  by  the  present  average  municipal 
organization  in  our  country. 

4.  The  process  affords  an  economical  method  for  disposing  of 
dead  animals. 

Disadvantages. — 1.  The  first  cost  is  comparatively  high,  because 
expensive  machinery  is  required.  The  cost  of  renewals  and  repairs 
is  also  high. 

2.  Odors  and  nuisances  are  produced  by  the  process,  which  it  is 
costly  and  difficult  to  suppress. 

3.  The  necessarily  distant  location  of  the  plant  and  the  careful 
separation  of  refuse  add  to  the  cost  of  collection  and  transportation. 

4.  The  usual  impracticability  of  having  more  than  one  plant  in  a 
city  means  that  the  entire  system  would  be  crippled  if  the  operation 
of  the  plant  were  stopped  by  a  fire,  strike,  or  otherwise. 

5.  The  commercial  nature  of  the  enterprise  does  not  render  it 
as  readily  adaptable  to  municipal  operation  as  to  the  contract  system, 
and  the  best  sanitary  conditions  are  not  so  easily  maintained. 

6.  Fire  hazards  and  explosions,  due  to  the  highly  inflammable 
naphtha  used  for  the  grease  extraction,  have  destroyed  or  wrecked 
a  number  of  plants.  Fire-proof  construction,  sprinkler  equipments, 
placing  the  cooking  and  drying  apparatus  at  a  distance  from  the  per- 
colators, as  well  as  guarding  against  corrosion,  leaks,  and  escaping 
odors,  make  a  very  careful  design  and  operation  essential. 

7.  An  increasing  conservancy  of  fats  in  American  households — 
common  in  Europe  for  many  years — will  tend  to  cause  a  gradual 
diminution  of  the  profits  from  this  process. 

8.  Past  experience  has  shown  also  a  financial  hazard  on  account  of 
the  wide  fluctuations  in  the  quantity  of  available  grease  and  in  the 
market  values  of  grease  and  tankage. 

I.  CONTRACTS  AND  SPECIFICATIONS 

For  garbage  reduction  work,  two  types  of  contracts  and  specifica- 
tions have  been  used.  One  type  is  for  the  construction  of  a  plant 
when  a  city  desires  to  operate  it,  but  wishes  to  have  it  built  by  a  con- 
tractor. Such  specifications  have  been  issued  at  Columbus,  Schenec- 
tady, Detroit,  and  Akron.     Another  type  is  for  both  the  construction 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  503 

and  operation  of  a  plant  by  a  contractor.  This  type  of  .specification 
has  been  issued  for  New  York  City,  Chicago,  Boston,  Philadelphia, 
Los  Angeles,  Rochester,  and  some  other  cities. 

In  both  types  the  general  articles,  the  form  of  contract,  and  other 
general  provisions,  are  similar  to  those  commonly  in  use  in  other  muni- 
cipal contract  work,  and  should  conform  to  special  local  and  State 
requirements.  We  do  not  discuss  those  here,  but  give  only  a  sum- 
mary of  the  more  important  and  pertinent  items. 

The  specifications  for  construction  work  must  define  the  process, 
capacity,  and  character  of  each  part  of  the  works  sufficiently  in  detail 
to  insure  the  purchase  and  erection  of  the  desired  plant,  including  all 
the  machinery.  Typical  sections  from  specifications  that  have  been 
issued  elsewhere  are  indicated  herein,  but  specifications  for  boilers, 
machinery,  and  other  standard  purchasable  articles  are  not  given. 
The  following  clauses  are  extracted  in  the  main  from  specifications 
issued  by  Columbus,  Chicago,  and  Schenectady.  It  may  be  found 
important  to  specify,  in  a  given  case,  also,  some  other  conditions. 
These  may  be  found  fully  described  under  the  headings  of  this  chapter, 
and  suitable  clauses  may  be  added.  Some  of  the  clauses  below  may 
be  found  unnecessary  or  inappUcable  in  some  cases. 

"  General  Description.— The  machinery  shall  be  designed  and  constructed 
for  the  economical  and  sanitary  disposal  of  garbage  and  dead  animals  by  the 
specific  process  known  as  reduction,  and,  with  reasonably  efficient  manage- 
ment, the  machinery  shall  be  capable  of  resolving  these  materials  into  com- 
mercial grease,  or  oil,  and  tankage,  preserving,  as  far  as  practicable,  the  valuable 
elements,  the  operation  to  be  conducted  in  a  manner  equal  to  the  best  modern 
practice  and  with  the  emission  of  no  offensive  odors  or  gases  or  other  obnoxious 
wastes,  solid  or  liquid,  except  those  which  are  inseparable  from  the  handling 
of  raw  garbage,  dead  animals,  or  the  finished  products  of  reduction  under  the 
best  and  most  suitable  methods  now  used. 

"  The  salable  constituents  of  the  raw  material  shall  be  saved  and  recovered 
in  the  process  without  material  loss.  The  oil  or  grease  shall  be  produced  in 
a  salable  condition;  the  tankage  shall  be  thoroughly  dried  and  screened,  and 
shall  not  contain  a  sufficient  percentage  of  moisture  to  affect  its  market  value. 

"  The  reduction  machinery  shall  comprise  digesters,  driers,  extractors, 
and  other  equipment,  with  the  necessary  piping  and  appurtenances,  all  of 
approved  construction  and  design,  and  shall  be  arranged  for  a  continuous 
cycle  of  operations,  such  that,  after  the  digesters  are  charged,  no  products  shall 
be  exposed  to  the  atmosphere  until  rendered  non-putrescible.  As  fai  as 
practicable,  during  all  parts  of  the  process  and  until  the  finished  products 
are  obtained,  the  materials  handled  shall  be  in  enclosed  apparatus.  The 
gases  emitted  shall  be  discharged  through  the  fires  of  the  furnaces ,  and  all 
tank-water  shall  be  evaporated. 

"  The  separation  of  grease  from  water  shall  be  done  in  closed  tanks  by 
using  traps  and  overflows. 


504     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  Except  as  otherwise  specified,  the  machinery  and  equipment  installed 
under  this  contract  shall  be  capable  of  reducing  in  the  manner  specified 
.  .  .  tons  of  garbage  and  dead  animals  in  each  consecutive  period  of  .  . .  hours. 

"  Receiver  Building. — The  receiver  and  picker  building  shall  be  provided 
with  receiving  bins  or  receptacles,  so  chat  the  garbage  when  dumped  from  boxes 
raised  by  hoisting,  or  from  conveying  devices,  will  be  unexposed  to  general 
view,  and  so  that  its  effluvia  are  subject  to  control  by  the  ventilating  system. 

"  The  picker  building  shall  contain  four  picking  or  sorting  beics,  prefer- 
ably of  the  pan  type.  Provision  shall  be  made  for  properly  cleaning  the  belts 
on  return  movement  and  reverse  sides. 

"  Exhaust  ventilating  hoods  shall  be  provided  under  picker  belts  at  proper 
intervals,  and  fresh-air  supply  ventilators  properly  arranged,  as  far  as  prac- 
ticable, to  decrease  any  offensive  odors  of  the  delivered  garbage. 

"  Each  sorting  belt  shall  discharge  into  the  hopper  of  a  disintegrator  or 
crusher  of  approved  make.  Each  crusher  shall  be  supported  on  a  substantial 
foundation  and  discharge  into  one  or  two  main  pan  conveyors  which  carry 
the  pulp  into  the  primary  drier  building,  or  directly  deUver  it  into  hoppers 
above  the  driers.  These  conveyors  shall  be  enclosed  in  sheet-iron  conduits, 
to  prevent  the  escape  of  effluvia  to  the  atmosphere. 

"  There  shaU  be  provided,  between  the  discharge  of  each  sorting  belt  and 
the  disintegrator  or  crusher,  a  shaking  table  to  facilitate  the  separation  of 
heavy  materials,  including  glass,  and  for  general  convenience  in  a  final  sorting. 
The  shaking  table  shall  be  provided  with  a  magnetic  separator  or  shaU  dis- 
charge upon  a  revolving  magnetic  separator. 

"  The  material  after  leaving  the  disintegrators  shall  be  fed  into  suitable 
compressing  devices  so  that  a  considerable  portion  of  the  moisture  may  be 
squeezed  or  pressed  out  therefrom  before  the  material  is  fed  to  the  conveyors 
leading  to  the  feed  hoppers  of  the  primary  driers  in  the  main  drier  building. 

"  The  walls  and  floors  of  the  picker  building  shall  be  of  concrete  and  steel 
construction,  and  protected  with  a  water-proof  covering  having  smooth 
surfaces. 

"  The  window  area  of  the  picker  or  sorting  room  shaU  be  large,  and 
provided  with  wire  glass.  The  design  shall  be  such  as  to  prevent,  as  far  as 
practicable,  any  effluvia,  which  are  thrown  off  by  the  material  when  passing 
through  the  building,  from  escaping  to  the  air. 

"  Provision  shall  be  made  in  this  receiver  or  picker  building  for  heating 
the  boxes  containing  frozen  garbage,  so  as  to  aUow  of  the  dumping  of  their 
contents. 

"  Proper  chutes  shall  be  provided  for  delivering  the  products  of  sorting  to 
proper  bins. 

"  Provision  shall  be  made  for  properly  delivering  carcasses  to  any  rendering 
tanks  or  vats.  The  arrangement  shall  be  such  as  to  prevent  as  far  as  possible 
unsightly  appearances,  without  interfering  with  convenient  and  economical 
operation. 

"  It  is  preferred  that  large  ozone  generators  be  mstaUed  at  suitable  points 
for  ameliorating,  when  required,  the  garbage  odors  in  the  receiver  and  picker 
building. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  505 

"  Proper  drains  shall  be  provided  for  taking  care  of  all  water  freed  from 
the  garbage  by  action  of  the  pulverizers  and  compressors,  and  all  drippings 
from  bins  and  other  apparatus. 

"  Necessary  60-cycle,  3-phase,  220- volt,  slip-ring  motors  shall  be  provided 
for  operating  pulverizer  belts  and  cun  /eyors  or  other  devices  required  to  deliver 
the  fresh  garbage  into  the  direct-heat  driers. 

"  Provision  shall  be  made  for  properly  sterilizing  the  garbage  boxes  after 
they  have  been  emptied  in  the  receiver  building. 

"  Attention  shall  be  given  to  the  proper  arrangement  of  devices  for  unload- 
ing, dumping,  sterilizing,  storing,  and  reloading  garbage  tanks  or  boxes,  with 
reference  to  dispatch,  convenience  and  economy  of  handling. 

"  Apparatus. — The  receivers,  commonly  called  digesters,  shall  be  of 
sufficient  size  and  number  to  handle  the  specified  quantity  of  garbage  and 
dead  animals. 

"  The  receiving  hoppers  shall  be  constructed  so  that  the  material  from  the 
digesters  can  be  delivered  to  them  and  then  to  the  presses  without  general 
exposure  to  the  atmosphere. 

"  The  presses  shall  be  of  sufficient  size  and  number  to  handle  the  required 
quantity  of  material.  The  whole  press  shall  be  enclosed  in  a  vapor-tight 
housing,  so  that  the  material  shall  not  be  exposed  to  the  atmosphere  while 
being  pressed. 

"  The  grease-separating  tanks  shall  be  arranged  and  constructed  so  that 
the  grease  can  be  freely  separated  from  the  Uquor  or  tank-water,  and  the  sedi- 
ment or  solids  settling  to  the  bottom  can  be  readily  drawn  off  or  pumped  to 
other  places  for  pressing  or  disposal.  All  tanks  shall  be  fitted  with  the  neces- 
sary appurtenances  to  make  the  work  complete. 

"  A  triple-effect  evaporator  shall  be  installed,  including  pumps,  condensers, 
piping,  gauges,  and  all  necessary  appurtenances  to  make  the  same  complete. 

The  evaporator  shall  be  capable  of  evaporating gallons  of  tank-water 

per  hour,  and  shall  be  constructed  so  as  to  resist  the  action  of  the  acids  found 
in  the  tank-water. 

"  A  complete  drying  installation  shall  be  made  for  handling  the  tankage  as 
it  comes  from  the  presses,  also  for  handling  the  concentrated  syrup  as  it  comes 
from  the  evaporator.  The  tankage  from  the  presses  should  not  contain  more 
than  45%  of  moisture.  The  concentrated  syrup  from  the  evaporator  should 
have  a  density  of  22°  Baume,  which  represents  a  solution  containing  approx- 
imately 50%  of  solids.  All  vapors  from  the  driers  shall  be  condensed  and  all 
insoluble  gases  shall  be  passed  through  the  furnaces. 

"  Two  (or  more)  grease-storage  tanks  shall  be  furnished  of  suitable  size 

and  number  for  the  storage  of gallons  of  grease  and  oU.    They  shall 

be  provided  with  heating  coils,  and  piped  for  filling  and  discharging. 

"  Suitable  pumps,  pressure  tanks,  and  appurtenances  shall  be  installed 
for  the  handling  of  grease,  tank-water,  and  other  liquids.  Pumps  for  handling 
liquors  and  grease  shall  be  in  duplicate  where  necessary,  to  insure  the  con- 
tinuous operation  of  the  plant. 

"  A  suitable  grinder  shall  be  provided  through  which  the  tankage  may  pass 
after  being  removed  from  the  digesters  and  before  it  enters  the  drier. 


506     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  A  wii'e  screen  having  six  meshes  to  the  inch,  and  capable  of  screening 
the  percolated  tankage,  shall  be  furnished  and  arranged  so  that  the  tailings 
will  pass  over  a  magnetic  separator  for  the  purpose  of  removing  any  remain- 
ing metal  before  such  taUings  go  to  the  grinder.  The  grinder  shall  be  capable 
of  grinding  all  the  tailings  passing  Trom  the  screen,  and  deliver  the  ground 
material  back  to  the  screen  for  re-screening. 

"  Conveyors  shall  be  installed  as  follows: 

"1.  For  removing  the  digested  garbage  from  the  digesters  to  the  grinder 

and  from  the  grinder  to  the  drier,  if  such  be  necessary; 
"2.  From  the  discharge  end  of  the  drier  to  a  storage  room; 
"3.  From  the  storage  room. to  the  percolator; 
"4.  From  the  percolator  to  the  screen; 

"5.  From  the  screen  to  the  storage  room  for  finished  tankage; 
"  6.  From  the  storage  room  to  railroad  cars  for  shipment. 

"  If  required,  an  elevator  shall  be  installed  for  delivering  the  tankage  from 
the  grinder  back  to  the  screen. 

"  Grease  Extractor  Plant. — There  shall  be  furnished  and  installed  a  com- 
pletely equipped  grease  extractor  plant  of  modern  and  approved  design. 
The  various  parts  thereof  shall  be  substantial  in  construction,  and  designed 
for  safety  and  convenience  in  operation. 

"  The  building  shall  be  isolated  from  the  other  buildings  and  be  of  fire- 
proof construction.  It  is  preferable  that  the  side-walls  and  floors  be  made  of 
reinforced  concrete  and  the  end- walls  of  steel  and  wire-glass  construction. 

"  All  necessary  devices  of  value  for  preventing  fire  and  eliminating  dangers 
of  explosion  shall  be  furnished  and  installed.  All  valves  shall  be  of  bronze  or 
shall  be  bronze-fitted.  All  steam  piping  shall  be  carefully  covered.  All  oil 
piping  shall  be  extra  heavy,  and  provided  with  special  joints  suitable  to  con- 
ditions attendant  on  handling  oil. 

"  Attention  shaU  be  given  to  the  arrangement  of  instruments,  valves,  and 
fittings  as  regards  safety  and  convenience  of  operation. 

"  Scrubbers. — There  shaU  be  furnished  and  installed  either  two  scrubbers 
or  a  duplex  (or  twin)  scrubber  of  approved  size  and  construction,  complete 
with  all  necessary  baffles,  spray  piping,  and  sprays,  for  properly  scrubbing  the 
gases  and  vapors  drawn  off  from  the  dust  chambers  of  the  various  driers,  and 
other  gases  required  to  be  treated  for  the  purpose  of  practically  eliminating 
all  disagreeable  and  harmful  odors. 

"  Each  scrubber  shall  be  of  sufficient  capacity  to  handle  all  the  gases  and 
vapors  of  the  entire  plant  when  working  at  the  rated  capacity.  All  spraying 
devices  and  piping  of  the  scrubber  shall  be  of  brass  or  bronze,  as  approved  by 
the  city.  Necessary  ducts  and  drains  shall  be  provided  to  carry  off  solid  and 
liquid  matters  thrown  down  by  the  action  of  the  scrubber  sprays,  and  to  deliver 
them  to  proper  collecting  tanks  and  basins. 

"  Provision  shall  be  made  for  connectmg  the  outlets  of  the  scrubber  with 
the  air  supply  or  ventilating  duct  serving  the  boilers.  There  shall  be  provided 
necessary  gate-valves  to  shut  off  these  connections  to  the  boiler  air-supply 
system. 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  507 

"  Necessary  ducts  shall  hct  provided  to  lead  the  gases  and  vapors  leaving 
the  scrubbers  to  purifying  furnaces.  Necessary  gates  shall  be  provided  to 
enable  the  inlet  and  outlet  of  each  scrubber  to  be  shut  off  from  the  rest  of  the 
system . 

"  Gasoline  Storage  Tanks. — There  shall  be  provided   gasoline 

storage  tanks  constructed  in  accordance  with  the  ordinances  of  the  City  of 

,  of  substantial  design,  each  provided  with  the  necessary  tell-tale 

valves  ana  fittings.  Each  tank  shall  be  not  less  than  ft.  in  diame- 
ter and  ft.  high.     The  tanks  shall  be  provided  with  substantial  and 

properly  constructed  foundations,  and  all  proper  drains,  pipe  connections, 
and  valves. 

"  Air  Heater. — There  shall  be  supplied  a  duplicate  air-heater  system 
for  the  utilization  of  the  heat  in  the  gases  from  the  furnaces  to  pre-heat  the 
air  used  in  the  driers. 

"  The  air-heating  system  shall  be  provided  with  necessary  high-efficiency, 
multivane,  direct-connected,  electrically  driven  fans,  with  all  necessary  ducts 
and  valves.  The  entire  construction  shall  be  substantial,  and  designed  for 
efficiency  of  operation  and  durability. 

"  Dust  Chambers. — Dust  chambers  of  approved  size  and  construction, 
made  of  reinforced  concrete,  properly  coated  inside  with  water-proof  covering 
of  approved  make,  shall  be  furnished. 

"  Suitable  stuffing-boxes  shall  be  provided  in  the  walls  of  the  dust  chambers 
to  prevent  the  leakage  of  gas  and  vapors  from  them  or  the  infiltration  of  air. 

"  Necessary  drains  shall  be  provided  for  carrying  off  any  effluents  that 
may  be  thrown  down  in  the  dust  chambers. 

"  Ail  bearings  and  pins  on  conveyors  used  in  the  dust  chambers  shall  be  of 
materials  non-corrodible  by  gases  and  vapors  encoimtered  in  the  dust  chambers. 

"  Ventilation. — There  shall  be  established  an  efficient  system  of  venti- 
lators and  pipes  to  assist  in  removing  objectionable  air  from  the  building. 
An  air  compressor,  tank,  and  hose  shall  be  provided  for  air  washing  all 
interior  surfaces. 

"  Main  Driers. — The  primary  drying  shall  be  done  by  direct-heat,  revolv- 
ing-type driers,  the  furnaces  of  which  shall  be  equipped  with  an  approved 
type  of  mechanical  stoker. 

"  The  type  of  stoker  and  construction  of  furnace  shall  be  such  as  to  permit 
of  convenient  feeding  and  efficient  combustion  of  the  coal  used  as  fuel. 

"  Suitable  automatic  temperature  regulating  devices  shall  be  installed, 
so  as  to  maintain  as  far  as  practicable  a  constant  maximum  initial  tempera- 
ture in  the  driers. 

"  The  furnaces  of  the  driers  shall  further  be  designed  so  that  they  can  be 
readily  equipped  with  od-burning  apparatus,  if  found  desirable  to  use  oil  as 
fuel  instead  of  coal. 

"  Ample  space  shall  be  allowed  in  the  furnaces  for  permitting  the  com- 
bustion flames  to  burn  out  completely  before  the  gases  enter  a  medium  of 
which  the  temperature  is  below  that  required  for  the  combustion  of  carbon. 
The  furnaces  shall  be  lined  with  fire-brick  of  recognized  high  standard,  as 
approved  by  the  city. 


508      COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  Recording  Instruments. — There  shall  be  supplied  the  following  instru- 
ments, of  high  quality  and  of  types  approved  by  the  city : 

"  One  indicating  and  one  recording  pyrometer  for  the  furnace  of  each  drier 
and  each  purifying  furnace. 

"  One  recording  and  one  chemical  thermometer  at  the  discharge  end  of 
each  drier. 

"  One  recording  and  one  chemical  thermometer  at  each  inlet  and  each  out- 
let of  scrubbers  and  air  heaters  on  the  pure-air  side,  and  on  outlets  of  the  hot- 
gas  sides  of  air  heaters. 

"  One  indicating  and  one  recording  draft  gauge  for  each  of  the  main  stacks. 

"  One  indicating  manometer,  or  equivalent  pressure  gauge,  for  each  main 
air  duct,  dust  chamber,  scrubber,  air  heater,  and  purifying  furnace. 

"  All  necessary  thermometer  wells  shall  be  provided  and  properly  placed. 

"  All  instruments  shall  be  substantial,  neatly  mounted,  and  properly  pro- 
tected against  the  possibility  of  injury. 

"  Storage  Building. — A  storage  building  shall  be  provided,  with  proper 
bins,  and  hoppers  with  all  necessary  chutes  for  the  convenient  loading  of  cars, 
and  with  a  suitable  number  of  bagging  and  weighing  machines.  The  equip- 
ment shall  be  of  substantial  and  modern  construction." 

Contracts  for  the  disposal  of  garbage  by  reduction,  which  involve 
the  operation  of  the  works  by  the  contractor,  extend  for  various  peri- 
iods,  and  have  ranged  from  one  year  (at  Philadelphia)  to  ten  years 
(at  Boston).  Ordinarily,  a  price  bid  for  the  disposal  is  paid  to  the 
contractor  by  the  City,  although,  during  the  past  few  years,  a  reverse 
payment  has  been  made  in  a  number  of  cities,  particularly  under  war 
conditions.  Frequently,  the  contract  includes  both  the  collection 
and  disposal.  Advertisements,  specifications,  and  contracts  must  be 
prepared  to  meet  each  local  condition.  Special  clauses  from  a  number 
of  published  specifications  are  given  below: 

"  Work  to  be  Done. — The  work  to  be  done  under  these  specifications 
consists  in  the  collection  and  removal  of  all  accumulations  of  garbage  and  dead 

animals  in  the  City  of   ,  for  a  period  of  ....  years,  to  some 

locality  or  localities  outside  of  the  corporate  limits  of  said  City,  except  as  here- 
inafter specified;  and  said  garbage  shall  be  disposed  of  in  such  a  way  as  to  be 
inoffensive  to  the  owners,  residents,  or  occupants  of  premises  near  the  place 
of  disposal,  and  in  such  a  manner  as  to  create  no  nuisance  either  at  such  place, 
on  the  way  thither,  or  at  any  other  place. 

"  Garbage. — By  the  term  '  garbage,'  used  herein,  is  meant  every  kind  of 
refiise  that  attends  the  preparation,  use,  cooking,  dealing  in  or  storing,  of 
meat,  fish,  fowl,  food,  fruits,  or  vegetables,  including  every  kind  of  con- 
demned foods  found  within  the  City's  limits,  and  all  such  material  as  may 
be  from  time  to  time  by  ordinances  declared  to  be  garbage,  but  not  includ- 
ing street  sweepings,  manure,  ashes,  or  miscellaneous  rubbish. 

"  Character  of  Garbage. — The  garbage  collected  and  delivered  by  the  City 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  509 

to  the  Contractor  or  his  authorized  agents  at  the  garbage  reduction  plant 
herein  referred  to  will  be  at  least  90%  pure  garbage  by  weight. 

"  The  City  does  not  represent  itself  to  be  the  owner  of  the  refuse,  and  it  is 
understood  that  any  independent  disposal  of  refuse  by  the  producers  thereof 
shall  neither  make  the  City  liable  to  the  Contractor,  nor  shall  the  same  be 
held  to  justify  his  default  in  fulfilling  any  of  his  requirements  of  the  contract. 

"  The  Contractor  is  to  submit  with  his  proposal  detailed  plans  and  specifi- 
cations showing  the  proposed  layout  of  the  plant  and  the  type  and  arrangement 
of  the  appliances  he  proposes  to  use,  together  with  all  other  information  neces- 
sary to  a  full  and  complete  understanding  of  his  bid.  Plans  and  specifications 
submitted  by  unsuccessful  bidders  will  be  returned. 

"  Probation  Period. — The  garbage-reduction  plant,  after  complete  erection, 
shall  be  put  into  the  actual  service  of  handling  and  reducing  all  the  garbage 
delivered  by  the  City,  and  be  run  under  probation  for  a  period  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty  calendar  days. 

"  If,  during  the  probation  period,  the  garbage  reduction  plant  shall  have 
been  found  capable  of  working  in  a  substantial,  continuous,  and  good  operative 
manner,  in  full  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  this  contract,  then  the 
City  will  so  acknowledge,  in  writing,  to  the  Contractor,  and  the  date  of  the  end 

of  the  probation  period  shall  be  the  beginning  of  the -year  term  of 

the  disposal  of  the  garbage. 

"  Should  the  garbage  reduction  plant  not  fulfill  the  requirements  of  this 
contract  successfully  during  the  probation  period,  then  the  City  will  so  notify 
the  Contractor  in  writing  of  its  failure. 

"  Failure. — If  the  garbage  reduction  plant  or  any  part  thereof  shall  fail, 
within  the  probation  period  herein  stated,  to  comply  properly  with  the  terUiS 
and  conditions  of  this  contract,  developing  any  objectionable  or  inherent 
defects  in  the  construction  materials  used,  or  defects  in  the  design,  tl.e 
manner  of  fabrication  or  construction  thereof,  or  shall  fail  to  operate  in  an 
inodorous  and  sanitary  manner,  then  the  Commissioner  of  Public  Wor!  .- 
may  declare  the  contract  forfeited. 

"  Running  Condition. — The  garbage  reduction   plant  when   completely 

erected  shall  have  a  capacity  for  receiving,  reducing,  or  disposing  of 

tons  of  garbage  per  twenty-four  hours. 

"  The  machinery,  auxiliaries,  appurtenances,  and  accessories  of  the  gar- 
bage-reduction plant  herein  specified,  when  completely  erected,  shall  operate 
without  undue  noise,  jar,  heating  or  wearing  of  pins,  journals,  boxes,  bearings, 
slides,  or  guides. 

"  The  garbage  reduction  plant  throughout  shall  at  all  times  be  kept  in  a 
first-class  state  of  repair  and  in  good  operative  condition.  When  completely 
erected,  it  shall  be  readily  capable  of  being  operated  in  such  a  manner  that  no 
offensive  odors  are  emitted  therefrom. 

"  All  effluents  discharged  from  the  plant  into  any  sewer  shall  be  non- 
odorous,  and  reasonably  clear. 

"  The  time  and  manner  of  operating  the  plant  herein  specified,  when  com- 
pletely erected,  shall  be  in  strict  compliance  with  sanitary  regulations  and 
ordinances  of  the  City  now  in  force  or  which  hereafter  may  be  adopted. 


510      COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

When  completely  erected,  it  shall  be  operated  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to  the 
Commissioner  of  Public  Works  and  the  Commissioner  of  Health. 

"  Accounting. — During  the  period  of  this  contract,  the  Contractor  shall,  at 
all  times,  keep  at  his  office  within  the  City,  a  complete  set  of  records,  books, 
accounts,  contracts,  and  original  vouchers  of  receipts  and  expenditures,  show- 
ing in  detail  all  the  investments,  disbursements,  expenses,  receipts,  and  earn- 
ings of  the  Contractor  under  said  contract.  Such  books,  accounts,  records, 
or  vouchers,  relating  to  the  business  done  under  said  contract,  shall  be  of  such 
character  and  shall  be  kept  in  such  manner  and  form  as  may  be  required  by 
the  Comptroller  of  the  City. 

"  The  Contractor  shall  submit  to  the  City  annually,  at  such  times  and  in 
such  detail  and  form  as  may  be  prescribed  by  the  Comptroller,  a  report  of  the 
business  done  under  this  contract  for  the  preceding  year,  which  report  shall 
be  sworn  to  by  the  Contractor  in  a  legal  manner. 

"  The  City  of ,  by  its  Comptroller  or  any  certified  accountant 

designated  by  the  Comptroller  in  writing,  shall  have,  and  may  exercise,  the 
right,  at  any  time  or  times  during  business  hours,  to  make  a  complete  examina- 
tion at  the  office  of  the  Contractor  of  all  said  records,  books,  accounts,  con- 
tracts, and  vouchers,  for  the  purpose  of  verifying  any  or  all  of  the  reports 
herein  provided  for,  or  for  any  other  purpose  whatsoever  is  connection  with 
the  terms  of  this  contract  and  the  business  done  under  this  contract,  and  may 
audit  the  same  at  or  about  the  end  of  each  period  of  one  year  or  at  about  the 
end  of  the  fiscal  year  while  such  contract  is  in  force. 

"  Right  to  Purchase.— The  City  shall  have  the  right  to  purchase  the  com- 
plete disposal  plant  and  all  licenses  and  rights  which  may  be  required  to  ope- 
rate the  same  after  the  expiration  of  the  contract.  The  City  shall  give  the 
Contractor  at  least  six  months'  prior  written  notice  of  its  intention  to  purchase 
it,  and  if  the  purchase  price  cannot  be  agreed  upon,  such  price  shall  be  deter- 
mined by  arbitration,  and  thereupon  the  purchase  price  will  be  paid  and  such 
licenses  and  rights  transferred  to  the  City." 

The  time  during  which  contracts  for  construction  and  operation 
should  extend  is  important.  They  are  frequently  for  such  short 
terms  that  contractors  have  reduced  the  construction  costs  to  a 
minimum.  Sanitary  features  are  thus  frequently  neglected,  and  the 
works  are  operated  on  a  merely  money-making  basis,  cleanliness 
taking  second  place.  Engineering  News  commented  editorially  on 
this  condition  on  October  7,  1913,  closing  as  follows: 

"  Either  longer  contract  terms  or  out-and-out  municipal  ownership 
should  be  adopted,  and  in  either  case  the  complicated  technical  problems 
involved  should  be  entrusted  to  competent  engineers." 

J.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

Reduction  processes  originated  some  forty  years  ago,  and  have 
been  used  chief! j^  in  the  United  States.     They  involve  a  separation 


REDUCTION  OF  GARBAGE  511 

of  the  garbage  into  grease,  tankage,  waste  liquids,  gases,  and  tailings. 
This  is  accomplished  by  mechanical  and  chemical  processes.  By 
the  former  the  cellular  structure  of  the  garbage  is  broken  up  suffi- 
ciently to  separate  the  organic  liquids  from  the  solid  matter  and 
allow  them  to  be  removed.  In  the  chemical  processes  the  grease 
is  extracted  by  solvents  and  by  cooking.  The  grease  is  separated 
from  the  water  by  gravitation,  and  prepared  for  the  market.  The 
water  is  sewage,  and  is  turned  into  a  sewer.  The  solid  matter 
embodies  the  tankage  and  the  tailings.  Tankage  is  a  brown  solid 
residue  consisting  almost  wholly  of  organic  matter,  and  has  been  used 
as  a  filler  for  strong  fertilizers  or  as  fuel  at  the  works.  When  used  as  a 
fertilizer,  it  requires  some  mechanical  preparation,  chiefly  screening. 
The  tailings  are  the  solid  residue  from  prepared  tankage,  and  are 
either  incinerated  or,  if  they  consist  substantially  of  mineral  matter, 
may  be  dumped.  The  waste  liquids  are  treated  as  ordinary  sewage. 
The  gases  and  vapors  generated  are  the  most  difficult  to  suppress, 
and  have  been  the  principal  cause  of  objection.  They  arise  chiefly 
from  the  digesters  and  driers.  Care  must  be  taken  to  prevent  leaks 
and  exposures,  and  several  processes  for  scrubbing,  washing,  and 
burning  have  been  developed. 

The  proper  location  of  a  plant  depends  on  the  equation  between 
the  cost  of  delivery  to  a  satisfactory  distance  and  the  cost  of  suppress- 
ing all  objectionable  odors.  A  lessening  of  the  latter  cost  would  require 
an  increase  of  the  former. 

The  products  secured  are:  A  low-grade  grease  and  tankage,  which 
is  a  base  or  filler  for  high-grade  fertilizers,  both  materials  generally 
having  a  ready  sale.  The  salable  value  has  generally  been  sufficient 
to  pay  the  expenses  and  yield  a  profit.  The  profit,  however,  is 
reduced  with  a  shrinkage  in  the  quantity  and  value  of  the  grease, 
and  by  the  necessity  of  greater  expense  for  operating  the  works. 

About  half  of  the  reduction  works  built  in  America  have  been 
abandoned,  because  of  the  offensive  gases  and  vapors  generated,  and 
the  dangers  of  fire  and  explosion.  Under  proper  safeguards,  how- 
ever, and  with  sufficient  expenditure,  such  objectionable  conditions 
can  be  overcome. 

The  greater  conservancy  and  waste  prevention  in  the  older 
European  countries,  and  which  we  may  be  gradually  approaching, 
indicate  rather  a  lessening  than  an  increase  in  our  profits  from  grease 
extraction,  unless  improved  or  new  methods  reduce  the  cost. 

Reduction  plants  have  usually  been  operated  by  private  com- 
panies under  contract.  In  a  few  cities,  as  Cleveland  and  Colum- 
bus, the  municipalities  have  undertaken  to  own  and  operate  the  works 
and  dispose  of  the  products  in  the  market. 


CHAPTER   XII 
ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 

In  the  selection  of  sanitary  methods  of  refuse  disposal,  the  cost 
of  building  and  operating  the  works  is  a  most  important  factor.  As 
already  pointed  out,  the  cost  problem  in  each  locality,  however, 
should  be  studied  as  a  whole,  covering  and  including  the  house 
preparation,  the  collection,  and  the  disposal. 

The  data  in  this  chapter  are  taken  from  the  best  available  pub- 
lished experience,  and  do  not  represent  an  actual  cost  analysis  in 
each  case.  The  figures  have  been  checked  carefully,  in  the  light  of 
the  authors'  general  knowledge  of  the  local  conditions.  However, 
for  all  special  problems,  the  original  source  of  our  information,  noted 
in  each  case,  should  be  referred  to  before  figures  are  adopted  for 
other  cases.  The  chief  object  of  the  present  chapter  is  to  give  infor- 
mation to  aid  in  the  selection  of  the  best  method  of  disposal. 

A  large  number  of  factors  will  influence  the  costs  of  municipal 
refuse  disposal,  both  of  construction  and  operation.  Some  of  these, 
such  as  political  influence  and  labor  union  control,  are  outside  of  the 
engineer's  province,  and  cannot  be  included  in  a  summary  of  cost  data. 
Local  standards  for  work  and  wages  also  affect  both  the  cost  and  the 
quality,  as  well  as  the  quantity,  of  work  done  per  man  per  unit  of 
time.  Varying  standards  of  sanitation  among  the  inhabitants  also 
have  their  bearing. 

The  offensive  character  of  odors  produced  at  reduction  plants 
requires  either  a  greater  expense  for  their  suppression  at  the  works, 
or  a  removal  of  the  plant  to  a  greater  distance,  increasing  the  cost  of 
delivery  but  reducing  the  cost  of  the  plant. 

The  character  of  the  gases  and  smoke  coming  from  the  chimneys 
of  incinerators  depends  largely  on  the  composition  of  the  garbage 
or  refuse  burned,  the  practicable  temperature  obtainable,  the  quantity 
of  fuel  naturally  available  or  artificially  added  and  the  efficiency  of 
the  operating  force.  A  lower  cost  for  fuel  to  be  supplied  may  result 
from  the  tolerance  of  a  community  in  allowing  some  odorous  gases  to 
escape  from  the  chimney  top. 

512 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL  513 

The  correctness  of  the  design,  of  course,  will  affect  directly  both 
the  cost  and  the  efficiency  of  operation.  The  first  cost  may  also  be 
influenced  greatly  by  the  desired  character  of  the  buildings  and  their 
surroundings  and  the  special  requirements  of  each  site. 

In  many  instances  the  local  situation  will  explain  differences  in  the 
net  costs  reported  by  different  cities.  Some  additional  data  that  may 
otherwise  be  useful  have  been  included  in  the  chapters  dealing  with 
each  method.  A  comparative  study  of  the  cost  of  several  methods 
should  be  made,  having  all  these  and  perhaps  other  general  conditions 
in  mind. 


A.  DIVISION  OF  EXPENSES 

A  proper  estimation  of  the  costs  of  refuse  disposal,  for  the  purpose 
of  comparison,  embodies:  First,  the  investment  for  construction,  etc., 
and  secondly,  the  annual  cost  of  operation.  The  latter  should 
include,  in  addition  to  the  purely  operating  costs  and  repairs,  also  the 
interest  on  the  investment,  a  depreciation  charge,  but  generally  not  a 
sinking  fund  charge.  The  construction  cost  should  include  engineer- 
ing and  legal  expenses  to  cover  the  necessary  preliminary  and  final 
investigations,  the  preparation  of  plans  and  specifications,  the  super- 
vision and  inspection  of  construction,  and  the  expense  of  tests.  The 
elements  are  summarized  as  follows: 

Investment  Cost 


Engineering, 

Land, 

Legal, 

Construction. 

Annual  Cost 

(a)  Fixed  Charges: 

(6)  Operation: 

Interest, 

Supervision, 

Depreciation, 

Labor, 

Sinking  fund. 

Repairs, 

Supplies, 

Fuel  and  power, 

Miscellaneous. 

Generally,  the  cost  data  herein  have  been  arranged  under  these 
items,  but  the  local  reports  have  been  followed  as  nearly  as  practicable. 

For  comparative  purposes,  operating  costs  are  best  compiled  on  a 
basis  of  the  work  done  per  man  per  hour  in  each  type  of  plant.     In  a 


514     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

number  of  instances,  therefore,  we  have  included  the  labor  schedule 
required  for  operation. 


B.  ENGINEERING  AND  LEGAL 

Many  of  the  comparative  failures  of  refuse  disposal  works  are  due, 
in  a  measure,  to  improper  design  and  construction,  or  to  the  selection 
of  a  method  of  collection  and  disposal  not  entirely  suited  to  local 
conditions,  or  to  laws  and  ordinances  which  have  sometimes  actually 
prevented  the  best  solutions.  These  failures  can  be  largely  obviated 
by  thorough  preliminary  studies,  by  an  early  adjustment  of  the  legal 
and  financial  matters,  and  by  experienced  supervision  over  the  design, 
construction,  and  operation.  Some  costs  of  general  preliminaries  and 
engineering  work  are  shown  in  Table  140.  These  costs  are  not 
excessive,  when  considering  the  value  of  securing  a  longer  life  for  the 
plant,  fewer  changes  and  repairs,  and  a  better  and  cheaper  operation. 

TABLE   140. — Preliminary  Engineering  Expense 
FOR  Investigations  and  Reports  on  Refuse  Disposal  Works 

(Approximate  figures) 


City 

Year 

Cost 

Work  done 

Chicago,  111 

1914 

$5000 

Investigation  and  report 

Milwaukee,  Wis .  .  . 

1909 

3000 

Investigation  and  report 

( (                  a 

1910-11 

7000 

Plans,  specifications,  and  super- 
vision of  construction 

San  Francisco,  Cal. 

1910 

6000 

Investigation,  report,  and  speci- 
fications 

Albany,  N.  Y 

1913 

2500 

Investigation  and  report 

Trenton,  N.  J 

1913 

2000 

Investigation,  studies,  report, 
and  estimates  of  cost 

Dayton,  Ohio 

1914 

2200 

Investigation,  studies,  report, 
and  estimates  of  cost 

Toronto,  Ont 

1911-12 

3000 

Investigation,  studies,  report, 
estimates  of  cost,  and  general 
specifications  for  incinerators 

Danville,  111 

1916 

650 

Investigation  and  report 

Louisville,  Ky 

1917 

1200 

Preliminary  report 

The  legal  expenses  should  cover  those  which  are  required  to  frame 
the  necessary  laws  and  to  have  them  adopted,  so  that  the  proposed 
work,  after  approval  by  the  respective  authorities,  can  be  properly 
built  and  operated.  They  may  include  also  the  prehminaries  for 
securing  land,  rights  of  way,  and  other  property,  and  framing  local 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


515 


ordinances  and  regulations,  concerning  chiefly  house  treatment  and 
the  collection  of  refuse,  and  also  to  protect  the  inhabitants  from  nui- 
sances and  damages  that  might  otherwise  result  from  the  careless 
operation  of  disposal  works. 

C.  CONSTRUCTION 

1.  Garbage  Furnaces. — As  garbage  furnaces  are  designed  to  burn 
garbage  or  other  comparatively  incombustible  refuse,  by  using  an 
auxiliary  fuel,  such  as  coal,  gas,  or  oil,  no  boiler  plant  for  heat  utiliza- 
tion is  ordinarily  included.  A  summary  of  the  construction  costs  of  a 
number  of  plants  of  this  type  is  given  in  Table  141. 

2.  Refuse  Incinerators. — Plants  of  this  type  burn  mixed  refuse 
without  an  additional  fuel.  They  usually  include  a  boiler  plant  for 
utilizing  the  heat  produced  by  the  incinerator.  A  summary  of  the 
costs  of  construction  is  given  in  Table  142.  The  first  cost  of  plants 
fitted  with  mechanical  apparatus  for  charging  and  clinkering  is  more 
than  that  for  hand-charged  plants,  but  the  operating  charges  are  less. 
The  itemized  costs  of  a  number  of  incinerators  follow: 

Westmount,  Que. — This  incinerator  was  built  in  1906  in  conjunc- 
tion with  a  municipal  electric  lighting  plant  which  uses  all  the  steam 
produced.  The  buildings  are  of  brick.  The  rated  capacity  of  the 
plant  is  50  tons  of  mixed  refuse  per  twenty-four  hours.  The  cost  of 
the  chimLuey  is  not  included,  as  it  is  charged  to  the  electric  light  plant. 
Cost  of  Westmount  Incinerator 


Item 

Total  cost, 
1906 

Cost  per  ton  of 
rated  capacity 

Buildings 

Plant  and  machinery 

$15,526.24 

18,919.56 

3,906.93 

3,088.10 

$310.52 
378.40 

78.12 

61.76 

Groundwork,  roads,  approaches,  sidings,  etc. .  . 

Preliminary   expense,    insurance,    engineering, 

sundries 

Totals 

$41,440.83 

$828.80 

In  1910  a  Heenan  incinerator  was  added,  doubling  the  capacity. 

West  New  Brighton,  N.  Y. — This  plant  was  erected  in  1908.  It 
has  a  Heenan  incinerator,  of  the  back-feed,  hand-fired  type,  with 
a  rated  capacity  of  60  tons  per  twenty-four  hours.  The  buildings  are 
of  concrete,  and  exceptionally  well  built.  The  chimney  is  of  rein- 
forced concrete.  Pile  foundations  and  a  concrete  runway  were 
required. 


516     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


o 

o 
ctq" 

n    O 

en 

-t-  ro 
2   p 
=1  -tS 
o  - 

Terre  Haute,  In 
Muskogee,  Okla 
Oak  Forest,  111. 
Racine,  Wis 

Pasn.rlfinn..  Ca,1 

0 
o 

Tj   p 

2 
P 

t3 

l-u 

St 

h-i 

p 

p 

H 

t> 

a 

txi 

COCOCDCOCDCOOCOCOCO 

CO 

x>  CO 

a 

o    ? 

1— 'H- 'OOOh- 'I— 'h- 'h- 'O 

o 

3    O 

r+ 

OOCOOOh-'COOJtOl-'^ 

o 

en    t-' 

o 

a 

to    rt- 

o 

"l 

1— » 

1— ' 

■a   fo 

1 

tOCOCOtOOJCOOtO^tfl^ 

to 

h<^   Oi 

E-  P    P 

CK 

OOiOOCnOOhJ^OO 
*      * 

o 

Oi    O 

»   2.  ? 

d 

o  w  w  •    • 

ffi 

33  td 

^ 

o    2    13 

V    a    a 

5    ftl 

>s     i-i 

O      fD 

:5    n 

'.'.:::    ^  ^  f^ 

3    -^ 

1^  ?r 

O 

'^ 

2-  cr  o- 

cr  o 

O-  C 

cr" 

O 
o 

CO 

H 

03 

uildin 
uildin 
ebui] 

3-  % 

3.  £. 
3'  5' 

P 

;       ;       ;       ;       ;       Q.  dq    m 

Cfq   ^ 

JQ    CR 

o 

o 

t3     P 

p     P 

CR     0 

0     3 

o 

O 

o 

p    o- 

o 

p^  O- 

3 

;  ;  ;  ;  :  g-s^ 

.     .     .     .     .     cr  3 

CR 

^3: 
1^ 

p 
o 

K-  3 

B    CO 

P  ^ 

a> 

P 

o 
p 

d 
o 

H 

^ 

■ — ' — • 

O 

OOOOQOOQQO 

l-i   Oi 

o  o 

o 

pppppppppp 

"O   *t3 

p    p 

t-ji-ji-ji-ji-ji-j»-ji-ji-ii-j 

p    p 

cro'CT'crcrcra'cra'cr 

o-  a- 

g 

O 

gOCDgOppfOpp^^ 

<n-   3- 

p    p 

t> 

(jqOqCfQCRCfQCRCfQQfPCfQCfQ 

^  i 
p  p 

jq    CR 

S3 

p               p               g 

a                    B                    0 

p] 

dnigh 
drub 
drub 

a- 
P 

d 

n-                  cr                   s- 

S) 

-soil 

ish 

ish 

2; 
0 

€© 

K)h^>-a2CntOf-'tOtO 

>-'    O 

bOCOOOOTH-'tOtOMOi 

rf^ 

H-    to 

rf^cooaiotooi>4^oo 

en 

O   O 

H 

OOOOOM^OOOO 

o 

O   O 

o 

OhJ^OOOi-'OOOO 

o 

O    O 

p 

oooooooooo 

o 

O    O 

oooooooooo 

o 

O    O 

o 

h—^              )_L     t— ^ 

^ 

^ 

H-'Cicoooo^tocjicocs 

tN2 

to    Ci 

tOOOWlOOOtOh-'lOtO 

to 

h^^  >- 

^ 

OOOOiOOOOi^COCn 

OX 

en    to 

^ 

a    fv 

o 

oooooooooo 

O 

O   O 

rt-'  (^ 

P 

oooooooooo 

o 

O   O 

<<! 

o 

— (- 

ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


517 


>> 

►^ 

P 

XJi 

hj  cc  O 
P   P    p^ 

CD      p      r<- 
1-1       M       O 
C«      5      H 

cT  W  td 

O      r^      CD 

0   »   £- 

J5"    p      CD 

-9  5^  0 

1 

t-      (fi        i^ 

o 

o 

O 

0 

■Si 

P.  "■ 

5' 

r 

p 

<! 

0   ?^ 

■^    CD      CD    ^ 

p  ; 

< 

CD 

td 
cr] 

b 
0 

?:   i    CR 

p  ?i-  •• 

ce    - 

3 
CD 

2 

^ 

^'^ 

k! 

0 

h- 1 

h- ' 

h-^     l—i     ^_i 

i_i    )_i 

— ^  K-A  ^-1  i_i 

H- ' 

h-*     )_4 

ioO 

CO 

<r> 

o  o  to 

CO    CO 

0>    CO    CO    CO 

CO 

J3  o 

h- ' 

(—'   t— '   1— ' 

H-*     H- ^ 

— *      H-»      t— '     O 

o 

o  o 

■r*    ^   5* 

rf>. 

I^ 

h*^    h^^   Oi 

h(^  CO 

to    to    O    CO 

00 

30   05 

0'           <» 

3 

"  ^        2 

to 

h-i   ■ 

h- ' 

Oi 

CO 

1*^  0        £    ^ 

OX 

to 

oi  w  <r> 

O   en 

In    CJ2    O   Oi 

o 

31    CJi 

O 

o 

o  o  o 

O   O 

3    O    O    O 

o 

O    O 

w 

rti 

W  td  Cd 

td  O 

:^  td  td  td 

o 

2  bd 

5-  5' 

2 
5' 
I?" 

13.  n.  3. 

o'  o'  o' 

?r  ^r  ?r 

i-l    o 

^ 

?. 

D      2      1-!      i-<      o 

1 

o 
0 

O 

cr 

3 

0 

CD 

0^  !? 
1% 

H 

i^l 

o 

O 
CD 

cr  cr  cr 

n  :::l:  & 

^  B'  & 
p'  5'  5' 

cr  CD 

cr 

:d   cr  a-  rv  2- 
•D    0.  fc.  c    q 

o 

CD 
CD 

§-r 

<< 

•a 
0 

1" 

0      CT- 

eh: 

CR    <l=i 
P     P 

[2_ 

H"  &  Bt  £  I-. 

0.   0     0     C'  o 
^CR    CR    ^     0 

^  p  p 

< 

CD 

cr 

CR 

s:  0" 

O-OR 
R 

o_ 

P     B 

o 

13 

CR    CTQ    UQ 
P     P     P 

o 
cr 

'^ 

Ic 

0 

B 

13    3 

P     3     0 

0     0 

s  p  p 

CB 

P 
0 
O- 

a"'' 

►1 

^,5 

CD 

&-  o-  o. 

^   ^ 

3  ^ 

3 

(Q     Cl   p- 

3 

CD    - 

C 

o  ^ 

irt- 
CD 

O     fj     o 

a    n 

Poo 

cr 

o 

^ 

cr 

0"  cr  0' 

0'  cr 

CD 

3    cr  cr 

C/l 

c 
0 

O 

^- 

5' 

g'  3'  3' 

g'  3' 

V! 

^3   §■ 

-i     P     P 

p" 

0 

o 

0- 

0 
o 

B 

3 

O    0    0 

0    0 

3     0     0 

c1- 

•-1 

CD 

a> 

1^ 

CD      CD      CD 

CD      CD 

-J     CD     CD 

^ 

0 

p 

'< 

v-j  v;  ^ 

v;  <<- 

1     ^    ^ 

1 

v: 

CD 

to     H- 
•<l     1— I 

4^   00 

h-i     I—" 

to 

to 

m 

00   to  CO 

00  -^i 

*^    Oi    1— '    rf^ 

00 

CO    0^ 

O    4^    to 

9^  p 

en    to    to    H-i 

hji. 

P  J-" 

H 

M  T-i 

"O    05  1:^ 

00   o 

o  o  o  "*-> 

CO 

"t-^  ~f(^ 

c 

Cn   Cl 

O   05   o 

o  o 

O    O    O    CO 

-<I 

CO  rf^ 

p 

O   Oi 

O   tn   -vj 

o  o 

O   O   C3   CO 

CO 

*-  o 

b  b 

bob 

b  b 

o  b  b  b 

'j_l 

Cji    00 

0 

o  o 

o  o  o 

o  o 

O   O   CO   o 

^ 

O   CO 

0 

1-5 

0     ■? 

^ 

p  ►,  £? 

p— '        h- ' 

t— ' 

'D     p 

j_|    CD 

CO  CO  >;^ 

CJi    h*^ 

yD  00  M  00 

h4^ 

05    00 

o  00 

CO   Oi   ^ 

M  o 

o  en  o  to 

o  to 

O   VI 

CO  CO  to 

►;^  o 

O    ^    M   rf^ 

05 

to    CO 

P   5        'o 

5      a             CD 

o-  0        2. 

t-H 

0 
8 
3 

1— ( 
0 

o 

h- ' 

p-       p 

&- 

5' 

3  £•      ^ 

Q-  jr-       era 

P      &;              g- 

"S- 

s 

o^ 

CD 

1 

3' 

OR 

3 
•-1 

P    CR 

"•    CD 
^     CO. 

^  ^        era 

g  M      ^ 

p' 

0 

CD 

0'    CD              CD 

3  ^       0 

b 

O 

i 


518     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 
Cost  of  West  New  Brighton  Incinerator 


Item 


Cost,  1908 


Cost  per  ton  of 
rated  capacity 


Building,  chimney,  and  runway 

Furnace,  boiler,  fan  engine,  etc 

Engine,  generator,  machinery  (approx, 

Steam  piping,  heating 

Platform  scales .' . 

Land 

Retaining  wall 

Sidewalk,  approaches,  etc 

Engineer's  house 

Totals 


$37,233.85 

23,995.00 

5,000.00 

263.95 

230.00 

5,070.25 

2,266.62 

903.00 

9,416.50 


$620.56 

399.92 

83.33 

4.40 

3.83 

84.50 

37.78 

15.05 

156.94 


1,379.17 


$1406.31 


Milwaukee,  Wis. — The  Milwaukee  plant  was  built  in  1910.  It 
has  a  Heenan  incinerator  of  the  top-feed  and  hand-fired  type.  The 
rated  capacity  is  300  tons  per  twenty-four  hours.  The  building  and 
chimney  are  of  brick,  and  are  on  pile  foundations.    The  prices  included 


Cost  of  Milwaukee  Incinerator 


Item 


Cost,  1910 


Cost  per  ton  of 
rated  capacity 


Earth  excavation 

Piling 

Concrete 

Steel  in  concrete 

Chimney 

Building 

Hoppers  and  parts  of  plant  subject  to  wear.  . 

Furnaces 

Boilers  and  settings 

Piping,  etc 

Forced-draft  machinery 

Charging  devices 

Cranes,  generators,  compound  engines 

Clinker  cars,  instruments,  tools,  etc 

Engineers,  fees,  etc 

Totals 


$1,385.48 

8.112,71 

7,824.22 

761 . 15 

4,577.00 

20,102.00 

15,960.00 

89,961.90 

27,500.00 

5,000.00 

5,000.00 

5,000.00 

9,503 . 00 

4,500.00 

6.819.17 


$212,006 .  63 


I  4.62 
27.04 
26.08 
2.54 
15.26 
67.07 
53.20 

299 . 87 
91.67 
16.67 
16.67 
16.67 
31.67 
15.00 
22.73 


$706.76 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


519 


only  a  small  margin  of  profit.  The  surplus  steam  is  used  to  generate 
electricity  with  which  to  pump  water  from  Lake  Michigan  to  flush 
the  Milwaukee  River. 

Savannah,  Ga. — This  incinerator  was  built  in  1914.  Its  equip- 
ment comprises  two  Heenan  top-feed,  mechanically-charged  furnaces, 
two  Wickes  boilers,  engine  and  generator  for  supplying  power  to 
operate  the  plant,  forced-draft  machinery,  and  crane  and  grab-bucket 
for  handhng  the  refuse.  The  rated  capacity  of  the  plant  is  130  tons 
per  twenty-four  hours.  The  building  is  of  brick,  and  is  well  con- 
structed. The  chimney  is  150  ft.  high,  6|  ft.  in  diameter,  and  is  built 
of  radial  brick. 

The  surplus  steam  is  delivered  to  the  adjoining  water- works 
pumping  station,  and  helps  to  operate  the  pumping  engines. 

The  cost  of  the  plant  was  as  follows: 


Cost  op  Savannah  Incinerator 


Item 

Cost,  1914 

Cost  per  ton  of 
rated  capacity 

Excavation,  foundations,  etc 

Paving  approaches  to  plant 

$2,366 .  90 
623.98 
234.72 
785.00 
307.14 
347.53 
120,000.00 

$18.21 
4.80 
1.81 
6.04 
2.36 
2.67 

923.08 

Clinker  walk 

Pipe,  and  water  softener 

Testing  material 

Incidentals 

Building  and  equipment 

Totals 

$124,665.27 

$958.97 

Seattle,  Wash. — The  Seattle  refuse  destrlictor  was  built  in  1908.  It 
had  a  rated  capacity  of  60  tons  per  twenty-four  hours.  The  equip- 
ment consisted  of  a  Meldrum  furnace,  hand-fired,  and  a  continuous 
grate,  steam-jet  blowers,  a  regenerator  for  heating  the  air  supply, 
and  a  220-h.p.  Babcock  and  Wilcox  water-tube  boiler. 

The  building  for  which  the  costs  are  given  was  first  built  with  a 
timber  frame  and  corrugated-iron  roof  and  sides.  It  was  afterward 
replaced  by  a  building  of  concrete  made  from  clinker  produced  by  the 
refuse  incinerator. 

The  steam  generated  was  used  for  operating  the  plant.  This  plant 
has  been  abandoned,  as  it  was  found  cheaper — and  at  present  is  con- 
sidered unobjectionable — to  dump  the  refuse  on  land. 

The  costs  of  construction  were  as  follows: 


520     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Cost  of  Seattle  Incinerator 


Item 


Cost,  1908 


Cost  per  ton  of 
rated  capacity 


Building 

Inclined  roadway 

Chimney 

Boiler  and  setting 

Furnace,  foundation,  and  fill 

Totals 


$3,015.74 
2,791.61 
3,326.23 
6,065.52 

20,935.40 


$50.26 

46.53 

55.44 

101.09 

348.92 


$36,134.50 


.24 


Toronto,  Ont. — The  incinerator  was  built  in  1912.  It  is  of  the 
"  Sterling  top-feed  "  type  (see  Chapter  X.,  F.  15).  The  capacity  is 
180  tons  per  twenty-four  hours,  with  three  furnaces  in  operation. 
The  cost  of  construction  is  given  as  follows: 

Cost  of  Toronto  Incinerator 


Item 


Property 

Buildings : 

Mason  work $84,500.00 

Gangways 685 .  00 

Wiring 3,100.00 

Hoists 1,151.09 

Extras,  etc 1,500 .  00 


Grading  (Parks  Dept.) .... 
Scoria  block  (Works  Dept.) 


$873.79 
770.00 


Furnaces 

Chimney 

Water  connections 

Drains 

Scale 

Hose 

Test  holes 

Driving  piles 

Foundations 

Totals 


Total  cost 


$41,100.00 


90,936.09 


1,643.79 

49,200.00 

10,700.00 

725.00 

855.46 

170.57 

170.83 

623.00 

9,749.23 

7,108.73 


$212,982.70 


Cost  per  ton 
of  rated 
capacity 


$  228.33 


505.20 


9.13 
273.33 

59.44 
4.03 
4.75 
0.95 
0.95 
3.46 
54.16 
39.49 


$1183.22 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


521 


Vancouver,  B.  C. — The  Heenan  back-feed,  40-ton  incinerator  has 
been  used  since  1907.  The  average  weight  of  refuse  burned  per 
man  per  hour  is  1.04  tons.  The  clinker  is  very  hard,  black,  and  well 
burned,  the  average  percentage  being  33.  The  evaporation  per 
pound  of  refuse  burned  is  given  at  0.52  lb. 

The  cost  per  ton  was  as  follows: 

Building,  etc $  400 

Chimney 98 

Furnaces  with  boilers  and  accessories,  complete.      532 

Total  cost  per  ton $1030 

3.  Reduction  Plants. — Nearly  all  the  plants  for  the  reduction  of 
garbage  have  been  built  by  contractors,  and  their  detailed  costs 
are  not  available.  The  costs  of  those  built  by  municipalities  are  sum- 
marized in  Table  144.  The  itemized  costs,  where  they  have  been 
available,  are  given  as  follows: 

Cleveland,  Ohio. — The  works  have  been  operated  as  a  municipal 
plant  since  1905  when  they  were  purchased  from  a  private  company. 
During  this  time  the  process  has  been  changed  twice.  The  costs, 
summarized  below,  give  the  purchase  price  and  also  the  price  of  addi- 
tions and  improvements  up  to  1913.  At  present  the  Arnold  or  cook- 
ing process  is  used,  and  the  plant  has  a  capacity  of  240  tons  of  gar- 
bage per  twenty-four  hours. 

The  following  statement  of  the  value  of  the  Cleveland  reduction 
plant  is  taken  from  the  annual  report  for  1919  of  Mr.  Alex.  Bernstein, 
Director  of  Public  Service:  During  that  year  60,932  tons  of  garbage 
were  treated. 


Item 

Cost 
up  to  1919 

Cost  per  ton 
treated 

Land  at  Willow 

$36,100.00 
133,698.47 

106,253.39 

376.00 

35,570.16 

$0.5925 
2.1942 

1.7438 
0.0061 
0.5838 

Buildings  at  Willow 

Equipment : 

Machinery,  tools,  and  implements 

Office  furniture 

Inventory 

Totals 

$311,998.02 

$5 . 1204 

Columbus,  Ohio. — This  plant  was  designed  and  built  by  the  munici- 
pality in  1910.  The  buildings  are  of  brick,  and  well  built.  The  capacity 
of  the  plant  is  160  tons  of  garbage  per  day,  and  its  cost,  reported  in 
1919,  was  $236,880,  including  a  percolator  plant  which  was  added  later. 


522     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE    143. — Itemized    Cost   of   Construction 
OF  Garbage  Reduction  Plant,  Columbus,  Ohio 


Item 


Cost,  1910 


Total 


Per  ton  of 

rated 

capacity 


Buildings:  Reduction  bldg.,  green  garbage  bldg., 
gasoline  storage,  oflBce,  and  half  of  stable. .  .  . 

Percolator  building 

Brick  chimney 

Digesters,  roller  presses,  grease  separating  and 
storage  tanks,  hot  well,  screw  press,  liquor  stor- 
age tank 

Receiving  hoppers,  jet  condensers 

Evaporators 

Boilers  and  stokers 

Driers  and  equipment 

Conveyors  and  elevators 

Percolator,  vaporizing  tanks,  and  condenser  .  .  .  . 

Gasoline  storage  tanks 

Reinforced  concrete  condenser  tank 

Motors  and  switch-board 

Boiler  feed  pumps 

Steel  boiler  flue 

Open  feed  water  heater 

Water  supply  pump 

Air  displacement  pumping  equipment 

Pipe  lines 

Oil  storage  tanks 

Railroad  track  scales 

Railroad  track  and  trestles 

Miscellaneous  new   equpiment   purchased  from 
operating  fund: 

in  1911 

in  1912 

in  1913 

in  1914 


Totals 

Engineering  and  miscellaneous . 

Totals 


$71,177.48 

10,218.43 

4,600.00 


36,625.00 

1,000.00 

9,400.00 

7,615.00 

12,650.00 

12,556.22 

6,030.39 

1,045.00 

946.00 

2,903.00 

574.00 

373.00 

944.00 

1,317.00 

4,046.00 

5,852.70 

172.00 

987.00 

5,182.80 


4,516.71 

1,426.82 

734.02 

1,416.09 


$204,309.64 
32,571.24 


$236,880.88 


$444.74 
63.88 
28.75 


228.92 

6.25 

58.76 

47.60 

79.07 

78.49 

37.69 

6.53 

5.91 

18.14 

3.59 

2.33 

5.90 

8.23 

25.29 

36.58 

1.08 

6.23 

32.39 


28.23 
8.92 
4.59 
8.85 


$1276.94 
203.57 


$1480.48 


(From  Report  of  Garbage  Reduction  Plant,  1915) 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


523 


Table  143  is  an  itemized  statement  of  the  cost  of  constraction  of 
the  Columbus  plant. 

The  principal  cost  items  in  1910  were  as  follows: 


Item 


Buildings,  grading,  etc 

Reduction  equipment 

Power  equipment 

Conveying  machinery 

Wiring,  electric 

Non-conducting  covering 

Levee 

Railway  tracks , 

Office  and  advertising 

Percolating  plant 

Sundry  additional  expenses,  about 

Totals 


Cost  per  ton 

Total  cost 

of  rated 

capacity 

$81,267 

$507.92 

58,866 

367.91 

21,357 

133.48 

9,316 

58.23 

3,671 

22.94 

1,011 

6.32 

9,712 

60.70 

3,343 

20.89 

16,143 

100.83 

20,000 

125.00 

8,314 

51.96 

$233,000 

$1456.25 

Rochester,  N.  Y. — Early  in  1920  a  contract  for  a  Cobwell  reduc- 
tion plant  was  let  to  the  CO.  Bartlett  and  Snow  Company,  of  Cleve- 
land, for  the  following  prices: 

Buildings $100,000 

Reduction  equipment 435,000 

Conveyors 90,000 

Motors 20,000 

Totals $645,000 


Additional  items,  not  included  in  the  contract,  will  probably  bring 
the  total  cost  up  to  about  $700,000. 

The  buildings  are  of  brick  and  steel,  and  are  on  land  owned  by  the 
city,  just  east  of  the  old  plant.  The  main  reducer  building  is  about 
114  by  69  ft.     The  tankage  storage  building  is  115  by  34  ft. 

The  equipment  consists  of  36  dige&cers,  each  having  a  normal  capac- 
ity of  4  and  a  maximum  capacity  of  5  tons.  It  is  assumed  that  about 
10%,  or  4,  of  the  digesters  may  be  out  of  use,  undergoing  repairs, 
leaving  32  for  normal  use,  these  32  having  a  working  capacity  of  128 
tons  per  day.  It  is  assumed  that,  in  case  of  a  large  supply  of  garbage 
during  September  of  each  year,  all  the  digesters  may  be  in  use  at 


524     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

their  maximum  capacity  of  5  tons  each,  making  the  peak  load  for  the 
plant  180  tons  per  day. 

The  present  population  of  Rochester  is  about  296,000. 

Schenectady,  N.  Y. — This  plant  was  designed  and  built  in  1914. 
The  cooking  process  is  used,  and  the  rated  capacity  of  the  plant  is 
60  tons  per  twenty-four  hours. 

Cost  of  Schenectady  Plant 


Item 

Cost,  1914 

Total 

Per  ton  of 
rated  capacity 

Land              

$10,500 

57,000 
46,500 

$175 

950 
775 

Machinery  and  boilers      

Buildings,  reduction  equipment,  gasoline  stor- 
age building,  receiving  station,  and  office..  . 

Totals         

$114,000 

$1900 

Under  recent  conditions,  the  CO.  Bartlett  and  Snow  Company 
5ive  $4500  per  ton  of  rated  capacity  as  a  figure  for  estimate  purposes. 
The  following  gives  some  recent  estimated  costs: 


Plant 

Rated  capacity, 

in  tons  per 

24  hours 

Construction  Cost 

Total 

Per  ton  of  rated 
capacity 

Staten  Island  (1918) 

2000 

150 

60 

135 

$3,000,000 
645,780* 
250,000 
472,000 

$1500 
4310 
4167 
3500 

Rochester  (1919)        

Syracuse  (1919) 

Akron 

*  Does  not  include  boiler  plant. 

For  cost  estimates  of  reduction  plants,  see  also  E.  Valuations. 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


525 


w 

t-^ 

0 

> 

X 

O 

O 

o 

o 

o 
w 

CD 

o 

'^ 
D 

£- 

w 
O 

o 
p 

o 

o' 

77- 

3 

o 

5' 

2 
p 

D- 

O 

1         2- 

g     o 

2 

3 

kJ 

£. 

?'     ?' 

H 

n 

CO 

CD 

1— 1 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CO           CD 

3       o            1 

to 

►-' 

h-* 

h- ' 

I— ' 

o 

Oi 

a< 

Oi 

*- 

^;^ 

O           Ct 

o'        a 

a 

^  ^       2 

1—1 

lO 

1—' 

>*^ 

t-         to 

p 

ts3 

en 

to 

M 

Gi 

o 

Ci           4- 

3^       1 

O 

O 

Oi 

Oi 

'^ 

o 

O           O 

■  a. 

W 

W 

n 

W 

w 

to 

W       Cd 

i-i_ 

►-l_ 

o 

[3_ 

i-i_ 

'-i_ 

2          "^ 

0 

o' 

o' 

o' 

o" 

n' 

o'         o' 

?r 

fr 

^ 

pr 

?r 

TT 

?r       ?r 

1^ 
3 

S 

p 

c-t- 

cr 

a- 

cr 

cr       a- 

0 

& 

g_ 

&    & 

O 

CO 

o 

5- 

5- 

f 

i^  1 

O 

03 

C3 

ct; 
a. 

5' 

CR 

CO 

(jq     ■ 
en 

•s 

CR 

CR           CR 
CO              M 

1 

05 

*- 

l_^ 

to 

to        S 

h*^ 

to 

Oi 

CD 

H-^ 

^ 

CO         o, 

tn 

Oi 

CD 

>(^ 

CO 

Oi         o 

H 

VI 

o 

O 

CO 

o 

05 

00        CO 

o 

00 

Q 

O 

O  . 

o 

00 

00        00 

p 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

CO 

O          CO 

o 

b 

b 

b 

b 

b 

bo        to 

O 
o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00        CO 

^ 

en 

h- ' 

1— I 

1—1 

h-*             h- ' 

a     y 

CO 

M 

M^ 

to 

CO 

f^ 

►f^             O 

PS? 

00 

o 

^ 

to 

o 

Oi 

00             4^ 

■0  S.  I 

O 

o 

to 

Oi 

o 

Oi 

O           CO 

S   »   o 

2-  O.  3 

b 

o 

o 

o 

o 

b 

h<^       i-' 

o 

^ 

° 

° 

° 

CO 

00           O 

"<         o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

O 

p 

1— I 

13 

CR 

g    §    o 

U" 

O" 

P 

O 

■-J 

2.  O     CO 

^ 

£- 

< 

5 

i" 

CD 

p" 

CD 
ill- 

o 
o 

Ui 

i 

m_ 

8 

o 

£3 

P 

ri- 

m 

h-i 

O 

C 
>-! 
O 

2  &:  P- 
8  &:  ^ 

p"  2  hw 
o   Oi   c: 

m 

B 

so 

o 
a; 

CD 

Cn 
O 
O 

a> 

-p  o    tr 

i 

^  Oi^ 

P- 

2 

o 

o' 

0 

CD 

E2. 

P 

ri- 

p 

CD 

CL 

526     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

4.  Feeding. — Very  few  actual  costs  of  hog  farms  are  available. 
The  method  has  developed  from  small  beginnings,  and  is  largely 
in  the  hands  of  local  farmers. 

Table  145  gives  the  estimated  first  cost  of  the  Danville,  111.,  hog 
farm. 

TABLE  145. — Estimated  First  Cost  of  Hog  Farm  for  Garbage  Disposal, 
Danville,  III.,  1916.    Population,  40,000 

500  hogs  at  $8 $4,000 

Team  and  harness 1,000 

Hog  house,  with  steam  heat 5,000 

Feeding-houses,  two  at  $3,500 7,000 

Wagon  scales 1,000 

Farm  wagons 250 

Farm  house 2,500 

Compost  pits 1,000 

Barn 1,500 

Water  supply 2,250 

Land,  40  acres  at  $300 12,000 

Fences,  drainage,  roads,  etc 2,500 

$40,000 
Contmgencies,  10% 4,000 

Total $44,000 

Estimates  of  the  cost  of  the  hog  farm  at  Worcester,  Mass.,  were 
made  and  summarized  in  1917  by  Frederic  Bonnet,  Jr.,  who  has 
studied  the  Worcester  farm  in  detail. 

The  following  figures  relate  to  the  first  cost  of  this  hog  farm, 
having  a  total  capacity  of  25  tons  of  garbage  per  day. 

Cost  per  ton  of 
rated  capacity 

Buildings $1200 

Wagons  and  miscellaneous  equipment 60 

Hogs 2008 

Total $3268 

The  cost  of  operation,  for  a  farm  handling  20  tons  of  garbage  per 
day,  exclusive  of  fixed  charges,  and  also  based  on  the  conditions 
obtaining  at  Worcester,  may  be  taken  as  follows: 

Cost  per  ton 

Superintendent $0 .  351 

Labor 0.789 

Grain  and  bedding 0 .  362 

Medicine 0.416 

Light,  heat,  and  power 0 .  137 

Total $2,055 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL  527 

6.  Dumping. — No  actual  construction  costs  for  dumping  are 
available.  The  disposal  of  refuse  materials  by  dumping  will  involve 
renting  land  or  securing  the  privilege  of  dumping  thereon.  The 
first  cost  is  limited  to  the  caretaker's  shelter  and  a  few  other  items 
of  dumping  equipment.  Along  water  fronts,  retaining  walls  for 
shore  protection  are  sometimes  necessary. 

6.  Plowing  into  Soil. — For  this  method  of  disposal,  also,  we  are 
not  able  to  furnish  actual  construction  costs.  After  the  land  is 
secured,  very  little  is  necessary  for  additional  costs,  other  than  the 
expense  of  plowing  trenches. 

D.  OPERATION 

1.  Garbage  Furnaces. — A  summary  of  the  annual  costs  of  oper- 
ating garbage  furnaces,  exclusive  of  fixed  charges,  is  shown  in  Table 
146.  Assuming  a  construction  cost  of  $600  per  ton  capacity,  and 
interest  and  depreciation  to  amount  to  10%,  the  fixed  charges  w'ould 
be  about  19  cents  per  ton.  The  labor  required  at  a  few  furnaces 
is  given  below. 

Minneapolis,  Minn. — This  plant,  with  a  capacity  of  65  tons,  was 
operated  in  1911  by  three  shifts  in  twenty-four  hours,  with  the  fol- 
lowing force : 

1  Superintendent 

3  Engineers  and  crane  operators 

3  Helpers 

6  Firemen 

3  Utility  men 

Norfolk  Va. — This  plant  was  operated  during  1014  and  1915  by 
the  following  force: 

1  Superintendent, 

1  Foreman 365  days  at  $2.50  per  day 

2  Helpers 312       "        2.10       " 

1  Night  Watchman 365       "        2. 10       " 

1  Helper 92       "        2.10       " 

1  Helper 79       "        2.10       " 

The  average  quantity  of  garbage  burned  was  only  20  tons  per  day. 
Duluth,    Minn. — The    80-ton    Decarie    furnace    at    Duluth    was 
operated  in  1912  by: 

1  Engineer at  $80.00  per  month. 

3  Firemen at    65.00  per  month. 

The  average  quantity  of  garbage  burned  was  about  30  tons  per  day. 


528     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


k  M  > 

~<  to  tS 

S  p  " 

■S'  S'  "> 


?  3 


"    -  p 

r 

Rankin, 
Duluth, 
Muskog( 
Racine, 

Terre  H; 

Easton, 
Erie,  Pa 
Portsmo 
Spokane 

P 

P    p 

"^  1— 1 

3 

^  O  B" 

-d 

p 

CO      ^ 

? 

to 
P 

p- 

0 

d      0  0 

0  0  o  ^ 

h— 1 

a> 

CD              CD     CD 

CD     CD     2.    o 

K 

CD 

p 

p              p     p 

P      P      ■        < 

IT> 

O    ^^ 

t-i  1—' 

h- ' 

1— '    *— '                    1—' 

n 

7*  «= 

X)    CD    W 

CD 

CO    CD           CO    CO    CO    CO 

CO  CO  >-; 

lL  I-' 

h-  h-l  h- ' 

O 

H-    O              l-i     H--     H^     1-' 

'-'     H-   ^►^     1— ' 

[3 

S^ 

M  hf^- 

~a 

CO    ^          -       i_  ^      - 

-*                    S-                                               V* 

O-               1 

aon                      |_i             H-    H- ' 

1— '     h- '     1— '     h- ' 

t~* 

o 

CD           CD    CD 

CD   CD    CD   CD 

s 

05 

o 

h- 1                H- '     I— ' 

h*:^         to  to 

1— '     h-i     1— '     h-' 

to    h-'    rf:^    h-i 

(R 

h- 1 

CO 

^  o 

CD    00    Oi 

00  ■           o  •     00  ~bo 

^^^  "h-'  "m  'oi 

0.   D"    -"      ,    1 

ft)      •"(      ^      m      O       1 

O    00 

W    H-   O 

CO 

CD    •               O    ■       O    O 

CD    00    fj^    ^ 

s,  a 

O    Ol 

to   CO    O 

o 

Oi  ■           o  •      o  o 

^   O   Oi    l-i 

lS    § 

—1-  — 1- 

-^ 

(C 

^ 

O    O 

3    O   O 

•     o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

O   W 

to  to  w 

•        CO    05    hl^ 

bo  rf^  ^  b 

tr 

O   M 

X  00  o 
++ 

•       hf^   Hi   o 

O    H-   O   CO 

t-i 

O 

o 

1 

^ 

O   O 

o  o  o 

O    H" 

■       CD 

•     o  •     o 

o  o  o  o 

•^ 

c 

TJ 

00  to 

M   to   4^ 

h-'    O 

•     b  •     b 

rfa.    O   CO    CO 

£. 

B 

^^   CD 

X)   Cfi   O 

<X>  O) 

•       00    •       CO 

to   ^   O   CO 

O 

m 

h-'    O 

O   O   O 

h-1 

h-1  O         H-i  o  o  o 

h-    O    H-'    o 

H 

<I    05 

35   Cfi   M 

CO 

05  b        to  ffi'  M  b 

to   en    O    CD 

B 

h(^  to 

<t   05   O 
++ 

c« 

to   CO           CD    to    to    to 

to     H-'    O    03 

* 

CD 

1 

O 

^  ^  .^  to  ^  ^  '^ 
p    p    GC  t^  ^O    P    P 

^   O  O  O  Q 

CD 

IIJ 

O      p      p      gs      p 

O         h^         H^         I-!        11 

P 

cr  cT'O   ►-  s<   cr  a- 

^  cr  a-  cr  cr 

>-< 

o'   E°     '-H 

p   p   ri-  cr  o   p   P 

^^  p   p   p   p 

P 

gCRj     crqcR         •     ><!crQm 

?:!' CJQ    JQ    GR    CJS 
O     CD     CD     CD     CD 
„    p      p      Q      P 
P     0      0     §     g 

O    i-j    i-j    7^    •-( 

r*  3  2       f= 

K^  E"  ^^  fe  2t 
.^  1^  ^  J  ^ 

< 

p 

1 
§ 

SI. 

O 

1=1      CD 

^  o  ►^ 

O         HI      ^ 

3.  ^"^ 

!^  g    a, 
o  ^^"^ 

§  p  ^ 

=    3    C 

'D     CD     H-*    o      S"    CO     CD 

3  2.  5^  ^  8  g- . 

^  S   ^  o   ^  •    g 

/I    to        a"  IB   . 

iT  CD         p    o  ~t_,  '"' 

CD 

s 

p 

o 

-f  CO         TO    "^  3J  2 

^  £      ^  ^  S- w 

'y^t    >  w  O 

3   ^^ 

O     3     CO 

K  §■  2 

P    o    w 

!    O           tq  •""   E3  ^ 
-    1-*,         -J           ^  . 

^    -*-        'Q    Q^.  to 
?             2    S'  to 

■D                      S      H     ;o 

^  U^  ■     CO  f; 

W    ^  S  t3     S 

■?    ^  iN2  00  to 

g  K  ?  o  ? 
5  K  h-        o5 

1—^ 

o    to 

tjq     en           O 

V   ts2 

-             ^     £L  CO 

S"   O           t*^ 

ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL  529 

Richmond,  Va. — There  are  two  garbage  furnaces  in  Richmond — 
a  Morse-Boulger  and  a  Decarie.  They  have  a  combined  capacity 
of  50  tons  per  twenty-four  hours.     In  1915  each  furnace  required: 

1  Foreman at  $2.75  per  day. 

2  Helpers at    2.25  per  day. 

2.  Refuse  Incinerators. — A  summary  of  the  annual  costs  of  oper- 
ating refuse  incinerators,  exclusive  of  fixed  charges,  is  given  in  Table 
147.  Assuming  a  construction  cost  of  $1000  per  ton  capacity,  and 
interest  and  depreciation  to  amount  to  10%,  the  fixed  charges  would 
be  about  32  cents  per  ton.  Itemized  statements  of  a  number  of 
annual  costs  are  as  follows: 

Westmount,  Que. — The  operating  costs  of  the  Westmount  incin- 
erator are  shown  in  Table  148,  compiled  from  the  financial  report  of 
the  City  of  Westmount  for  1919  and  from  local  information.  The 
fixed  charges  were  computed  by  the  auditors  for  the  city. 

It  should  be  noted  that,  from  1907  to  1910,  the  incinerator  con- 
sisted of  one  50-ton  Meldrum  furnace,  and  that  in  1910  a  50-ton 
Heenan  furnace  was  added,  making  the  present  capacity  of  the  plant 
100  tons  per  twenty-four  hours.  This  accounts  for  the  increase  in 
the  interest  and  depreciation  charges  in  1910  over  preceding  years. 

Table  148  also  shows  the  revenue  obtained  from  the  sale  of  steam 
to  the  electric  light  plant.  It  is  computed  as  follows:  At  different 
periods  a  twentj^'-four-hour  run  of  weighed  coal  alone  is  made,  and 
from  this  is  found  the  number  of  pounds  of  coal  required  to  produce  one 
kilowatt-hour,  as  registered  on  the  recording  instruments.  Until 
the  next  run  is  made,  this  figure  is  used  to  calculate  the  value  of  the 
refuse  as  a  fuel  when  coal  and  refuse  are  burned  at  the  same  time. 
The  incinerator  is  therefore  charged  with  the  value  of  coal  when 
used. 

Vancouver,  B.  C. — The  operating  costs  per  ton  of  refuse  in  1910 
have  been  given  as  follows : 

For  operation,  not  deducting  revenue $0. 56 

For  interest  and  sinking  fund 0 .  35 

For  revenue  tax 0.10 

The  staff  (eight-hour  shift)  consisted  of  1  engineer,  6  firemen,  and 
1  dumpman. 

West  New  Brighton,  N.  Y. — In  computing  the  fixed  charges,  the 
interest  on  the  plant  is  taken  at  4^%,  on  an  annuity  basis. 

Table  149  gives  the  annual  costs  of  the  plant  from  1909  to  1912, 
inclusive,  and  for  1918. 


530     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


'^  t?j  o 
3  3-|. 


CD  g 


H|3   TO 

w 

^ 

^ 

^ 

<! 

CD 

H^ 

-D 

3-    r<- 

~     ^ 

P 

CD 
r1- 

.   ^ 

Xi 

3    a> 

" 

3 
3 

:25 

•~ 

•- 

-  P       : 

C 

2 

3 

9? 

» 
P' 

CD 

:r! 

W 

^ 

p   cr 

"     - 

?s 

^ 

^ 

^ 

::^    -      ^ 

2 

« 

3"      - 

? 

c1- 

O 

J3 

• 

"^ 

.^ 

h- '     h- ' 

h- 1     h- ' 

h-i 

H-i 

h-" 

H- ' 

X 

CO    «D 

X)    CO 

-O 

CD 

^ 

CD 

©    CO    CO 

o 

H-'    O 

h-' 

h- '     h- '     h- ' 

h- ' 

p 

O    00 

3i    Or 

f^ 

1—' 

Oi 

ZJI 

hj^    CO    ^ 

h*^ 

•-J 

zan 

•1 

H- 

to 

to  to 

to 

en 

Cn 

C;i   Cn   h-" 

to 

D.  cr*  T    H 

M    00 

05    M 

1—1 

O 

rf^ 

00 

4^    CO    -J 

CO 

"<i    C    C    ffl    o 

Ol  "h-i  " 

*-  "a 

c» 

"to  " 

to 

o" 

c:2   Cn   C5 

00 

g  2-  3  5-  g 

O    ><^ 

)t^    05 

h- ' 

hf^ 

<I 

t<^ 

00    00    00 

o 

'^  S  »  S  r< 

O    H-' 

to     H- 

h*^ 

><^ 

c;t 

CO 

rf^    1—    CO 

o 

CR    ^  a>    o 

=-| 

m 

*o 

O    O 

o  o 

o 

1— ' 

h- ' 

t— ' 

h-i   h-i   o 

o 

2   o   H 
^   o   o 

W   00 

00  -a 

a> 

CO 

to 

H-" 

to    to    CD 

Oi 

'^  S.  « 

O     H- 

00    ^ 

1— ' 

o 

rf^ 

Or 

Oi    OS    i(^ 

en 

B 

m 

■o   to 

o  o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

o  o  o 

o 

SS  " 

h- '    i— ' 

to 

CO 

to 

to 

h-    to    hf^ 

14^ 

1=1  £ 

05    ^ 

I—" 

CO 

o 

o 

^    O   M 

00 

— 1- 

€«% 

■0  2: 

o  o 

o  o 

o 

o 

1— ' 

o 

H-i     •          O 

O 

!?   5- 

CO  00 

M    05 

*^ 

CD 

o 

CO 

O   ■       rf^ 

b 

■n-    o 

O    h- 

to  o 

o 

^ 

rf^ 

c^ 

CO    •         ^ 

<i 

g    1 

^ 

m 

^ 

?ti 

w  > 

TO 

:3  H 

5  or; 

romi 

Rec. 

team 

: 

1 

CD 

3 

1914 
lso3 
ept. 

i 

cd' 
o 

o 

CD 

3' 

CD 
<r<-    CD 

•     p 

CO 
O 

-    05 

•-i 
C! 

3 

CD 

" 

C    p 

CD^ 

cd' 

1— '   1— ' 

13 

o 
c» 

a- 

^i* 

2_ 

a 

B 

CO    CO 

H- '     I—" 

c  plant. 

,1s 
orks,  IS 

r+ 

ct> 

CD 
>-< 

0- 
o 

00 

> 

^ 

3 
3 

CD 

CD 

p 

'■ 

0 

^ 

c+- 

5 

p 

feg 

CD 

?+■' 

s 

c-f- 

*■ 

< 

«a 

ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


531 


xl 

►^ 

:^ 

1) 

P  a  £?:  5^  i' 

? 

2 

"a    fD    p    ?t-  a- 

o 

^ 

2  TJ    jr  i> 

>^ 

i^ 

? 

■^ 

-1      S,      C    ►!      o 

2.   t:>    3    fD    tr- 
3    S    _  r  ^ 

o" 

3 

> 

5-          CR  et.  c' 

J_                 o     O     3 

CD 

o 

o 

=r  3    &. 

^ 

-5 

p5 

/-C 

h-> 

l/i 

0 

-1 

^ 

*" 

_ 

yi             era 

^ 

00 

T) 

73 

yi 

■B 

I 

w 

55 

<s« 

5« 

ee 

!_, 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o  o  o  o 

o 

H- ' 

o 

Oi 

w 

-o 

in    1— '   O    1— ' 

^■<l 

^ 

o 

Oi 

3> 

Di  CO  1^  o 

2. 

* 

s 

^ 

^ 

€e 

J» 

o 

O 

o 

o  o  o  o 

Ca3 

1— ' 

■ 

CD 

*^ 

en 

w 

30 

tn   H-  O   H-i 

05 

o 

00 

£1 

to    to   00   <l 

t4^ 
1— I 

00 

i 

€« 

^ 

€« 

]S 

o 

o 

o 

=" 

o  o  o  o 

s 

o 

k(^ 

4^ 

X 

^  ■_  b  h- 

CO 

o 

3J 

O) 

O 

35 

05   Cn   05   CO 

CO 

CO 

#9 

=« 

€« 

? 

o 

o  o  o  o 

o 

en 

CD 

en 

05 

*^ 

O 

4^  to  b  to 

o 

lo 

bO 

o 

to 

»    H-    00    Oi 

m 

00 

o 

> 

t?3 

o 

m 
o 

o 

^ 

o  o  o  o 

M 

1— ' 
CO 

h- ' 

OS 

4^ 

_ 

:;i  to  b  to 

to 

o 

S' 

05 

35 

tsD 

©    H-   <I   en 

SI 

o 

1— ' 

H 

00 

S! 

? 

en 

£ 

o  o  o  o 
4^  H-  b  to 

00 

CO 

(-' 

O 

X   ^   Oi    h-i 

00 

to 

o 

^ 

m 

#e 

I—" 
00 

■ll 

o 

O 

o  o  o  o 

1—1 

CO 

bi 

4^ 

—I 

35  i-"  b  'to 

^ 

1— ' 

Or 

'jy 

o 

m    ^   Oi   CO 

CO 

CO 

1— ' 

^       1 

^ 

■g^ 

to 

CO 

g 

o 

■Zi 

o 

o  o  o  o 

1— ' 

o 

'hf^ 

*- 

© 

In    H-i   O   H- ' 

CD 

h-i 

tJi. 

» 

CO 

m  oi  >(i.  00 

^ 

rf^ 

o 

J^ 

o      1 

D 

s 

o  o  o  o 

p 

l_^ 

o 

CD 

d 

bi 

4^ 

o 

35  h-  b  to 

00 

h- ' 

H 

M 

» 

J1 

Ln   Oi   Cn   O 

o 

en 

o 

■* 

€^ 

^ 

^ 

h- ' 

CO 

Or 

1 

O 

bi 

3 
4^ 

o  o  o  o 

<I  i-»  o  to 

h- 1 

CD 

h-1 

o 

35 

jn 

-'  "^I  en   to 

05 

o 

€e 

^ 

^ 

I-* 

o 

3 

o  o  o  o 

CD 

1— I 

«o 

4^ 

4^ 

£i  'to  b  to 

05 

I—' 

o 

00 

<[ 

:;i 

4^  O  05  en 

CO 

CO 

M 

3 

^ 

^ 

^ 

E4 

h- ' 

S 

->  o  o  o 

00 

h- ' 

CO 

t 

>f>. 

js 

<i 

w  i—  b  to 

05 

h- 1 

H 

M 

N3 

o 

--   CO    (35   CO 

CO 

00 

o 

-1- 

CO 

ss 

^ 

ie 

^ 

P 

O 

o  o  o  o 

CD 

1— I 

CO 

1© 

N2 

CO 

X.  I-'  b  'to 

<l 

1—1 

CO 

© 

» 

W  00  en  to 

5 

CO 

532     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE  149.— Annual  Cost 

OF    West    New    Brighton    Refuse    Incinerator, 

IN  Terms  of  Cost  per  Ton  of  Refuse  Burned 


Year                     

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1918 

Tons  of  refuse  burned       

9375 

8827 

9244 

8960 

7107 

Fixed  charges: 
Interest   

$0,405 
0.174 

0.295 
0.857 
0.058 
0.008 
0.004 

$0,430 
0.185 

0.331 
0.930 
0.052 
0.013 

0.003 
0.009 
0.005 

$0,411 
0.177 

0.275 
0.918 
0.064 
0.008 

0.003 
0.005 
0.001 

$0,424 
0.182 

0.302 
0.935 
0.090 
0.020 

0.005 
0.009 
0.002 

ISO.  528 
1.370 
0.083 
0.012 

0.082 

Depreciation 

Operating  charges: 
Supervision 

Labor     

Supplies  and  materials 

Repairs  and  replacements 

Apparatus,  machinery,  etc .... 
Proportion     of     auto-mainte- 
nance, etc 

Fuel 

0.008 

Contingencies 

Office  charges 

Totals      

$1,809 

$1,958 

$1,862 

$1,969 

B2.075 

♦Included  in  above. 

The  labor  schedule  for  1911  was  as  follows: 

1  Engineer at  $4.50  per  day  (part  time  on  other  work). 

1  Assistant  engineer.,  .at    3.50  per  day. 

8  Furnacemen at    900.00  per  annum  each. 

1  Extra  furnaceman. .  .  at    900.00  per  annum  (acts  as  watchman) . 

The  plant  was  operated  in  two  eight-hour  shifts,  and  approximately 
35  tons  of  refuse  were  burned  per  day. 

Milwaukee,  Wis.— As  the  incinerator  in  Milwaukee  was  the 
largest,  and  one  of  the  first  built  on  modern  plans,  in  this  country,  the 
cost  items  are  given  in  some  detail  in  order  to  follow  better  its  devel- 
opment. Tables  150,  151,  and  152  give  the  earhest  conditions,  from 
1911  to  1913. 

Table  153  shows  the  operating  expenses  for  1919,  exclusive  of 
fixed  charges;  and  Table  154  shows  the  cost  per  ton  for  1917,  1918, 
and  1919,  also  exclusive  of  fixed  charges. 

The  earlier  tables  give  the  required  labor,  its  cost,  and  the  total 
annual  cost,  including  also  fixed  charges  and  materials.  This  informa- 
tion was   obtained   partly  from   data  in  the  annual  reports  of  the 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


533 


TABLE  150. — Labor  Schedule  for  Five  Months 

AT  THE  Milwaukee  Refuse  Incinerator,  1911 


Percentage  of  total 
Labor  cost 

Cost  per 
ton  burned 

Superintendent 

2.9 

2.5 

1.8 

5.7 

0.8 

0.1 

17.1 

20.2 

5.3 

6.9 

35.7 

0.3 

0.7 

SO. 029 
0.025 
0.018 
0.056 
0.008 
0.001 
0.168 
0.199 
0.056 
0.068 
0.351 
0.003 
0.007 

Foreman 

Timekeeper  and  weighmaster 

Boiler  room  routine 

Cleaners 

Cleaning  hoppers 

Clinker  handling 

Charging  furnaces 

Crane  ooeration 

Engine  room  routine 

Furnace  routine 

Hoisting 

Upkeep  of  grounds 

Total  labor 

100.0 

$0,985 

TABLE  151. — Labor  Schedule  at  Milwaukee  for  1912  and  1913 


Amount  paid 
per  month 

Number  of  men 

1912 

1913 

Superintendent 

$125.00 
100.00 
90.00 
75.00 
70.00 
75.00 
70.00 
60.00 
60.00 
60.00 
60.00 
60.00 

1 
1 
2 
1 
3 

24 
3 
3 

15 
9 
2 
1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

24 

3 

3 

15 

12 

2 

1 

Chief  engineer 

Engineers 

Weighmaster 

Engineer's  helpers 

Furnacemen 

Cranemen 

Cranemen's  helpers 

Floormen 

Ashmen 

Hoistmen 

Janitor 

Totals 

65 

68 

In  191.3,  one  engineer's  helper,  one  craneman,  and  one  craneman's  helper  were  occa- 
sionall.v  added  for  temporary  work  during  the  summer. 


534     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

TABLE  152. — ^Annual  Costs  of  Operating  the  Milwaukee  Refuse 
Incinerator,  in  Terms  of  Costs  per  Ton  of  Refuse  Burned 


Year 

Tons  of  mixed  refuse  burned .  .  . 

Fixed  charges:  * 

Interest 

Depreciation 

Operating  charges: 

Additions  and  improvements 

Fuel 

Plant  expenses 

Supplies 

Repairs  and  replacements .  .  . 

Direct  labor 

Indirect  labor 

Totals 


1912 


1913 


48,513.22 


53,581.02 


K0.175 
0.218 


0.074 
0.024 
0.014 
0.020 
0.035 
0.707 
0.295 


$0,158 
0.197 


0.080 
0.031 
0.027 
0.013 
0.020 
0.710 
0.354 


$1,562 


$1,590 


*Interest  was  taken  at  4%  on   $212,006.63.     Depreciation  was  taken  at  5%  on  the 
same  cost,  and  based  on  an  average  life  of  the  plant  of  20.4  years. 

TABLE  153. — Operating  Expenses  of  the  Milwaukee  Incinerator 
FOR  1919,  Excluding  Fixed  Charges 

Personal  service  (superintendence  and  labor) .  $87,022 .  96 

Cleaning  and  disinfectant  supplies 13 .  22 

Fuel 8,294.93 

Office  supplies 25 .  14 

General  supplies 1,132 .  16 

Minor  apparatus 20 .  10 

Tools 134.12 

General  materials 613 .  61 

General  repairs 0 .  00 

Minor  repairs 2,271 .  93 

Municipal  garage  service 252 .  21 

Telephone 9 .35 

Water 2,970.00 

General  service 57 .  10 

$102,816.83 

Office  equipment 20 .  00 

General  equipment 805 .  95 

— 825.95 


$103,642.78 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


535 


Department  of  Public  Works  and  partly  from  the  studies  made  by 
the  Bureau  of  Efficiency  and  Economy. 

TABLE  154. — Annual  Cost  peu  Ton  for  Operating  the  Milwaukee 
Incinerator,  Excluding  Fixed  Charges 


Year 

Mixed  refuse 
delivered,  in  tons 

Total  cost 

Cost  per  ton 

1917 
1918 
1919 

46,979.97 
45,457.58 
42,202.26 

$72,079.07 

81,047.60 

102,816.83 

$1.53 

1.78 
2.44 

The  labor  schedule  for  1919  was  as  follows: 


1  Superintendent 
4  Engineers 
3  Cranemen 
3  Cranemen's  helpers 
15  Floormen 


27  Furnacemen 
2  Wagonmen 

12  Clinkermen 
2  Fuelmen 
1  Clean-up  man 


4  Oilers 
1  Weighmaster 
1  Scale  helper 
3  Change  men 
1  Repair  man 


The  total  number  of  men  is  80;  the  average  is  75. 


Paterson,  N.  J. — During  December,  1913,  when  burning  50  tons  per 
day,  the  plant  was  operated  by  three  shifts  per  day,  with  the  following 
force : 

1  Superintendent at  $125.00  per  month 

3  Engineers at        3.50  per  day 

3  Firemen at        2.75  per  day 

3  Helpers at        2.25  per  day 

When  running  at  its  normal  rate,  the  furnace  is  operated  on  only 
one  eight-hour  shift  per  day,  with  the  following  force : 

1  Superintendent at  $125.00  per  month 

1  Engineer at       3.50  per  day 

1  Fireman at       2.75  per  day 

2  Watchmen at       2.75  per  day 


These  labor  ratings  were  in  force  when  the  plant  was  being  oper- 
ated by  the  Destructor  Company,  prior  to  its  acceptance  by  the  City. 

The  quantity  of  refuse  burned  when  operating  with  the  Super- 
intendent and  4  men  was  from  16  to  19  tons  per  twenty-four  hours. 


536     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

Savannah,  Ga. — When  burning  an  average  of  75  tons  of  refuse  per 
twenty-four  hours,  the  labor  schedule  in  1915  was  as  follows: 

1  Superintendent  3  Hoppermen 

3  Engineers  3  Cranemen 

9  Firemen 

One  extra  stoker  was  emploj'ed  during  July  and  August. 
The  following  wages  were  paid  for  eight-hour  shifts. 

Superintendent,  part  of  day $2 .  50 

Engineers 4 .  00 

Cranemen 2 .  25 

Firemen 1 .  75 

Laborers 1 .  50 

TABLE  155. — Annual  Operating  Costs  op  Garbage  Reduction  Plants, 
Excluding  Fixed  Charges 


Tons 

Total 

Revenue 
per 

Net 

Plant 

Year 

reduced 
during 

cost 
per 

profit 
per 

Remarks 

year 

ton 

ton 

Cleveland,  Ohio. .  . 

1913 

52,354 

$2 . 000 

$2,694 

$0,694 

1914 

55,730 

2.437* 

3.491 

1915 

66,271 

2.044 

3.367 

1.323 

1916 

60,717 

2.418* 

4.981 

1917 

56,121 

3.188 

5.203 

2.015 

1918 

57,754 

4.399 

7.573 

3.174 

Columbus,  Ohio  t  • 

1911 

17,534 

1.852 

3.349 

1.497 

Does  not  include 

1912 

18,789 

2.049 

3.285 

1.236 

railroad    trans- 

1913 

20,711 

1.910 

2.740 

0.830 

portation 

1914 

21,629 

1.859 

3.085 

1.226 

1915 

22,909 

1.940 

2.417 

0.477 

1916 

21,861 

2.215 

4.051 

1.836 

1917 

17,127 

4.190 

4.621 

0.433 

1918 

15,630 

6.47 

7.18 

1.71 

1919 

18,128 

5.19 

4.05 

1 .  15t 

Indianapolis,  Ind. . 

5/26/18 

to 
12/31/18 

12,187 

3.548 

7.174 

3.626 

Chicago,  111 

1914 

75,600 

2.046 

1.278 

0.768t 

1915 

150,875 

1.846 

1.214 

0.632t 

1916 

137,920 

3.138 

2.977 

0.161t 

Dayton,  Ohio .... 

1916 

16,280 

1.90 

2.53 

0.63 

*  Includes  depreciation. 

t  Figures  for  Columbus  taken  from  Eng.  News-Record,  Nov.  18,  1920. 

%  Loss. 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


537 


3.  Reduction  Plants. — A  summary  of  the  annual  operating  costs 
of  garbage  reduction  plants  is  given  in  Table  155,  no  fixed  charges 
being  included.  Assuming  a  construction  cost  of  S1300  per  ton,  and 
interest  and  depreciation  to  amount  to  10%,  the  fixed  charges  would 
be  about  42  cents  per  ton  of  garbage.  The  fixed  charge  per  ton 
would  be  higher,  of  course,  if  the  plant  were  working  below  its 
rated  capacity. 

Cleveland,  Ohio. — Table  156  is  an  itemized  statement  of  the  annual 
costs  for  Cleveland.  There  follows  a  statement  of  the  itemized  cost 
for  1919.     The  quantity  of  garbage  treated  was  60,932  tons. 


TABLE    156. — Itemized   Cost   of   Operation 
OF   Garbage    Reduction  Plant  at  Cleveland,  Ohio 


Item 

Cost  per  ton 

1912 

1913 

1915 

1917 

1918 

Tons  of  garbage  reduced 

43,555 

52,354 

66,271 

56,121 

57,754 

$0.0780 

$0.0458 
0.0191 
0.0028 
0.8873 
0.1287 
0.4102 
0.0025 
0.1243 
0.0064 
0.1001 
0.0314 
0.0038 

0.0183 
0.0305 

0.1368 
0.0518 

$0.0311 
0.0316 
0.0048 
0.9746 
0.3691 
0.0836 
0.1082 
0.0988 

0.0108 
0 . 0288 
0.0000 

0.0015 
0.0088 

0.1253 
0.1670 

$0  0395 
0.0346 
0.0046 
1.3818 
0.9037 
0.1239 
0.0889 
0.1305 

0.0179 
0.0296 
0.0001 

0.0093 

0.2142 
0.2000 

$0.0416 
0.0399 
0 . 0048 
1 . 6624 
1 . 3664 
0.1122 
0.2019 
0.1942 
* 

0.0072 
0.0942 
0.0000 

0.0020 

0.4396 
0.2325 

Clerk  hire 

0.0049 
1.0403 
0.1893 
0.3328 

Coal 

Gas 

Supplies 

0.0745 
0.0948 
0.0395 

Miscellaneous  expense .  / 

Maintenance: 
Buildings: 

0.1223 

Machinery  and  equipment 

Totals 

$1.9764 

$1.9996 

0.0418 
0.0093 

$2.0440 
0.0211 

$3.1876 

$4 . 3989 


Extraordinary  expense: 

Totals 

$2.0507 

$2.0651 

*  Included  under  supplies. 


538    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 
Itemized  Statement,  Cleveland  Plant,  for  1919 

Cost  per  Ton. 

Supervision $0 .  0440 

Clerk  hire 0.0395 

Operation : 

Labor  for  reduction ' 1 .  8692 

Supplies: 

Office 0.0011 

Fuel— coal 0.8751 

Fuel— gas 0.0181 

Light 0.0029 

Gasoline 0 .  1384 

Manufacturing 0 .  0175 

Water 0.0524 

Miscellaneous 0 .  0524 

Overhead  and  miscellaneous 0 .  1186 

Maintenance : 

Machinery  and  equipment — Labor 0 .  2413 

Machinery  and  equipment — Material 0 .  1919 

Buildings— Labor 0 .  0109 

Buildings— Material 0.0177 

Total  reduction  cost $3 .  6910 

Depreciation 0 .  2183 

Total  cost  including  depreciation,  $238,202.73..  .  .   $3.9093 

Income  from  sale  of  garbage  grease $215,060.26 

Income  from  sale  of  garbage  tankage..  .  .       78,721.17 
Income  from  sale  of  garbage  tailings.  .  .  .  458.99 

Income  from  prepaid  freight 103.28 

Income  from  miscellaneous 2,017.29 

Total  income $296,360.99 

Income  per  ton $4.87 

Profit  per  ton 0.96 

The  force  employed  at  the  Cleveland  plant  in  July,  1918,  was  as 
follows : 

Superintendent 1 

Foremen 3 

Engineers 3 

Firemen 3 

Helpers 3 

Green  garbage  men 4 

Blacksmith 3 

Pipe  fitters 3 

Carpenters 2 

Electricians 2 

General  labor 25 

Skilled  labor 52   ' 

Total  number  of  men  on  pay-roll 104 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


539 


Columbus,  Ohio. — This  plant  is  openated  on  2  eight-hour  shifts 
in  summer  and  on  1  eight-hour  shift  in  winter.  The  garbage  handled 
daily  in  1912  varied  from  40  tons  in  winter  to  90  tons  in  summer,  with 
an  average  of  60  tons.  Details  of  the  operating  costs  are  given  in 
Table  157. 


TABLE    157. — Itemized    Cost   op   Operation 
OF    Garbage    Reduction  Plant  at  Columbus,  Ohio 


Item 


Cost  per  ton 


Supervision 

Clerk  hire 

Foremen 

Firemen 

Operators 

Ordinary  labor 

Fuel 

Clothing 

Mechanical  supplies  *.  . 

Chemical  supplies 

Other  supplies 

Motor  vehicle 

Advertising 

Insurance 

Taxes  and  rent 

Light  and  power 

Other  service 

Maintenance: 

Buildings 

Railway  tracks 

Equipment — I,abor. .  . 

Equipment— Material 
Other  maintenance .... 

Office  expense 

Transportation 

Miscellaneous 

Telephone  and  telegraph 
Hauling 


$0,192 

0.121 
0.189 
0.559 
0.331 


SO. 148 
0.074 


0.052 
0.118 


Totals . 


$1,910 


*  Including  motor  vehicle  supplies. 


540     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


The  crews  employed  at  the  Columbus  plant  were  as  follows: 


Number  of  Men 

Winter 

Summer 

Superintendent 

Master  mechanic 

2 
3 

3 

2 

2 
1 
10 
2 
4 
4 
2 
6 
2 

Assistant  master  mechanic 

Blacksmith 

General  repair  man 

Foreman  on  night  shift 

Watchman 

Firemen 

Helper               

Green  garbage  building  cleaners 

Digester  tops  on  feeding 

Presses  and  digester  bottoms 

Grease  room 

Evaporating  room       

Drying  room     

General  labor '. 

Totals 

22 

40 

TABLE   158. — Cost  to  Cities  for    Garbage   Reduction  by  Contract 


Annual  Payment 

City 

Year 

Tons 
per 

TO  Contractor 

Remarks 

year 

Total 

Per  ton 

Chicago,  111 

1912 

127,200 

$47,500 

$0.37 

Disposal  of  garbage  only 
Includes     transportation     but 
not  collection 

New  York,  N.  Y... 

1914 

62,500* 

Manhattan,  The  Bronx,  and 

Brooklyn  only 
Increases  $25,000  per  year  for 

next  3  years 

Boston,  Mass 

1914 

134,000 

Increases   $3000  per   year,   in- 
cludes transportation  but  not 
collection 

Cincinnati,  Ohio.  .  . 

1909 

34,7G0 

90,000 

2.59 

Collection  and  disposal  of  gar- 
bage only 

Rochester,  N.  Y  •  .  . 

1913 

30,000 

77.500 

2.58 

Collection  and  disposal  of   gar- 
bage only. 

Los  Angeles,  Cal. . . 

1915 

-0.51  * 

City  furnishes  water  free 

Philadelphia,  Pa.  .  . 

1914 

323,583 

Municipal  Journal 

Buffalo,  N.  Y 

1914 

18,000 

t  (                t  * 

Atlantic  City,  N.  J  . 

1914 

20,000 

Baltimore,  Md .... 

1914 

37,000 

$2000  increase  per  year 

Washington,  D.  C. . 

1914 

51,600 

Municipal  Journal 

Syracuse,  N.  Y.  .  .  . 

1914 

13,975 

" 

*  Paid  by  contractor  to  city  for  garbage. 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


541 


The  costs  per  ton  for  garbage  reduction,  where  it  is  done  by  con- 
tract and  a  fixed  annual  sum  is  paid  by  the  city  to  the  contractor,  or 
vice  versa,  are  shown  in  Table  158. 

Table  159  gives  the  market  prices  of  grease  and  tankage,  in  Chi- 
cago, Cleveland,  and  Columbus,  for  the  years  1913  to  1919. 


TABLE  159. — Maeket  Prices  of  Grease  and  Tankage  from  Garbage 

(From  the  Canadian  Engineer,  November,  27,  1919) 


Year 

Grease,  in  Cents  per  Pound 

Tankage,  in  Dollars  per  Ton 

Chicago 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Chicago 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 
1917 
1917 
1918 
1918 
1919 

7.29 
7.34 

11.57 

4.26 

4.17 
4.41 
6.50 

8.00 

13.50 
5.0  to  7.6 

3.75 
4.33 
3.76 
5.16 

7.50 

11.75 
6.72 

$4.16 
4.16* 
10.27 t 
10.27* 
16.85 t 

$6.00 
6.75 

8.75 
7.75 
9.58 

18.50 

10.00 

$6.79 
7.41 
7.00 

7.84 
10.85 

19.80 

15.65 

To  August  1st. 


t  Remainder  of  year. 


4.  Feeding. — Actual  cost  data  for  the  operation  of  hog  farms  for 
garbage  disposal  are  generally  difficult  to  separate  from  the  collection 
costs  and  the  revenue  from  the  sale  of  pork.  An  estimate  of  the  cost 
of  operation  of  a  hog  farm,  based  on  experience  at  Worcester,  Mass., 
by  Frederick  Bonnet,  Jr.,  is  given  in  Chapter  VIII.  Other  data  may 
also  be  found  in  that  chapter. 

5.  Dumping.— The  data  available  for  the  cost  of  dumping  refuse 
materials  cover  mainly  the  upkeep  of  dumps,  and  do  not  include  rela- 
tive land  values  before  and  after  dumping.  Some  typical  costs  of 
operation  are  given  in  Chapter  VII. 

6.  Plowing  into  Soil  and  Burial. — Such  data  as  we  have  for  the 
operating  cost  of  disposal  of  garbage  by  plowing  into  soil  and  burial 
are  given  in  Chapter  VII. 

E.  VALUATIONS 

We  are  able  to  present  valuations  of  only  two  reduction  plants. 
No  valuations  are  obtainable  of  incinerating  plants,  sorting  plants, 
hog  farms,  nor  of  any  other  means  of  finally  disposing  of  municipal 
refuse. 


542    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

1.  Chicago. — One  of  the  few  and  most  recent  valuations  of  a  refuse 
disposal  plant  owned  and  operated  by  a  private  company  and  taken 
over  by  a  city,  was  made  in  connection  with  the  purchase  by  the  City  of 
the  plant  of  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company.  The  appraisers,  Col. 
Henry  A.  Allen,  for  the  City,  Mr.  Harold  Almert  for  the  Company, 
and  Mr.  Leonard  Metcalf,  were  unable  to  agree  on  a  value.  A  record 
of  their  proceedings  is  published  in  the  Journal  of  the  Chicago  City 
Council  for  October  1,  1913.  The  result  of  their  work  is  summarized 
briefly  as  follows : 

The  agreed  original  cost,  exclusive  of  development  expenses, 
according  to  the  best  information  then  obtainable,  is  approximately 
as  follows: 

Real  estate  and  buildings $179,304 

Machinery  and  fixtures 206,731 

Total,  August  31,  1913 $386,035 

The  agreed  gross  reproduction  cost  of  the  physical  property, 
including  agreed  allowances  of  7%  for  engineering,  5%  for  contin- 
gencies and  omissions,  and  4%  for  interest  during  construction, 
amounts  to  $296,370. 

The  accrued  physical  depreciation,  based  on  the  gross  reproduc- 
tion cost,  including  overhead  allowances,  has  been  estimated  at  the 
following  amounts: 

By  Col.  Allen $122,071  41% 

By  Mr.  Metcalf 72,000         24% 

By  Mr.  Almert 41,585  14% 

The  depreciated  reproduction  cost  of  the  physical  plant,  excluding 
real  estate,  development  expense,  etc.,  resulting  from  these  three 
estimated  allowances  for  accrued  physical  depreciation,  determined 
by  the  several  arbitrators,  are  as  follows: 

Col.  Allen $173,082 

Mr.  Metcalf 224,270 

Mr.  Almert 255,989 

No  allowance  is  made  in  these  figures  of  net  reproduction  cost  for 
the  real  estate,  for  by-products  or  supplies  on  hand,  August  31,  1913, 
for  functional  depreciation,  obsolescence,  etc.,  or  for  the  development 
expense  or  going  value. 

The  value  of  the  real  estate,  bordering  on  Bubbly  Creek  and  39th 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL  543 

Street,  and  aggregating  149,984.13  sq.  ft.,  is  estimated  by  Col.  Allen 
at  $112,488,  and  by  Mr.  Almert  at  $119,986,  for  ordinary  manufac- 
turing purposes.  The  average  of  these  figures  is  $116,237,  and  it  is 
agreed  that  6%  is  a  fair  additional  allowance  to  be  applied  to  the  land 
to  cover  interest  on  its  cost  during  the  construction  period  of  the 
plant,  and  5%  to  cover  engineering,  legal,  and  other  expenses  incident 
to  the  acquisition  of  the  necessary  land  for  such  a  project.  Adding 
these  percentages,  the  average  price  of  the  land  for  ordinary  manu- 
facturing uses  would  amount  to  $129,023. 

The  Company  contends,  however,  that  a  substantially  higher  value 
should  be  placed  on  this  property  for  the  purposes  of  garbage  reduc- 
tion, by  reason  of  its  pecuhar  adaptability  and  location,  both  as  a 
center  for  collection  and  disposition,  and  on  account  of  its  proximity 
to  the  stockyards  district. 

Col.  Allen  takes  the  position  that  no  additional  allowance  should 
be  made  on  account  of  these  considerations. 

Mr.  Metcalf  suggests  that  an  allowance  of  $15,000  would,  in  his 
judgment,  be  reasonable. 

Summing  up,  therefore,  these  several  independent  views,  the  fol- 
lowing net  or  depreciated  reproduction  costs  of  the  physical  property 
of  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company,  excluding  all  allowances  for  or 
in  consideration  of  development  expenses  or  going  value,  result: 

Col.  Allen's $305,000 

Mr.  Metcalf's 383,000 

Mr.  Almert's 463,000 

As  previously  stated,  the  Board  was  unable  to  agree  on  a  fair 
value  of  the  property,  under  the  terms  of  the  contract  entered  into 
between  the  City  of  Chicago  and  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company 
under  date  of  August  30,  1913. 

Col.  Allen  stated  that 

"  The  City  of  Chicago  is  not  compelled  to  purchase  or  to  make  use  of  the 
plant  of  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company  for  the  taking  care  of  its  garbage 
in  a  sanitary  manner.  The  city  officials  are  in  possession  of  data,  based  upon 
properly  conducted  experiments  conclusively  proving  it  is  practicable  to 
immediately  handle  the  garbage  of  the  City  in  a  sanitary  and  inoffensive 
manner,  should  the  present  plant  be  destroyed  or  otherwise  become  unavail- 
able for  use  by  the  City  .  .  .  Further  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  fact 
that  there  is  a  strong  public  sentiment  favoring  abandoning  the  reduction 
process,  and  caring  for  and  disposing  of  the  City's  wastes,  including  garbage, 
by  means  of  incineration.  The  City  Council  has  already  authorized  the  pur- 
chase of  several  tracts  of  land  for  the  installation  of  incinerators," 


544     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

and  that  the  property  should  be  valued  upon  the  basis  of  the  fair 
value  of  the  land  for  manufacturing  purposes,  and  the  value  of  the 
plant  should  be  of  its  temporary  utility  to  the  City.  Upon  this  basis 
he  valued  the  property  of  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company  at  the 
approximate  sum  of  $208,582,  as  follows: 

"  Real  Estate $112,488 

11%  allowance  thereon  for  interest-during-construction  and  cost  of 

acquisition 12,374 

Organization  expenses.     (Proportionate  part) 8,400 

Temporary  utility  of  parts  of  plant 67,070 

Scrap  and  salvage  value 8,250 


$208,582 


Mr.  Almert  valued  this  property,  on  the  basis  of  its  income  in  the 
hght  of  its  past  history,  at  $750,000. 

Mr.  Metcalf  called  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  contract,  entered 
into  between  the  parties  at  issue,  stated  in  its  preamble,  first,  that 

"  The  City  of  Chicago  desires  to  purchase  the  plant  of  the  said  Reduction 
Company  for  the  purpose  of  operating  the  same  to  dispose  of  the  City's  gar- 
bage, and  the  Chicago  Reduction  Company  has  agreed  to  sell  the  same," 

for  which  reason  it  was  clearly  to  be  assumed  that  the  contracting 
parties  were,  respectively,  in  the  position  of  willing  buyer  and  willing 
seller;   and,  second,  that 

"  The  appraisal  is  to  be  made  upon  the  plant  as  a  going  concern,  taking 
into  consideration  the  reasonable  development  expenses  incurred  by  said 
Company  in  bringing  said  garbage  reduction  plant  to  its  present  condition, 
with  all  of  the  natural  accretions  thereto,  and  is  to  include  the  lands  upon  which 
said  plant  is  now  located,  taking  into  consideration  the  peculiar  adaptability 
for  the  purposes  for  which  it  is  now  used,  with  all  of  the  appurtenances  there- 
unto both  above  and  below  ground,  buildings,  machinery  and  all  tools,  stores, 
supplies,  and  merchandise  on  hand,  all  assignable  outstanding  contracts;" 

and  that,  therefore,  the  property  should  be  valued  as  one  having  a 
developed  business,  or  one  which  was  producing  from  garbage,  by- 
products which  found  a  ready  market  at  prices  showing  profit  to  the 
Company  independent  of  any  payment  to  the  Company,  by  the  City, 
for  the  services  rendered;  and  that,  under  the  terms  of  this  agree- 
ment, it  was  unfair  to  assume  that  the  property  would  be  valued  on 
the  assumption  that  it  was  to  be  abandoned  by  the  City,  or  to  be 
utilized  merely  for  its  temporary  convenience. 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL  M5 

Without  attempting  to  make  refined  figures  on  the  various  bases 
of  estimate  outHned,  Mr.  Metcalf  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  fair 
value  of  these  works,  determined  on  the  basis  contemplated  in  the 
joint  agreement,  might  be  fixed  at  approximately  $475,000  as  of 
August  31,  1913. 

The  authorities  of  the  City  of  Chicago  did  not  see  their  way  clear 
to  accept  Mr.  Metcalf's  valuation,  and  undertook  energetically  to 
dispose  of  the  garbage  by  dumping.  Under  these  conditions,  the 
Reduction  Company  agreed  to  accept  a  lower  figure,  and  the  plant  was 
finally  purchased  by  the  City  for  $279,689. 

2.  Rochester. — In  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  in  1918,  a  valuation  was 
made  of  the  reduction  plant.  The  plant  had  been  in  use  for  some 
years,  and  was  taken  over  by  the  City.  The  arbitrators  were  Mr.  I.  S. 
Osborn  for  the  City,  Mr.  G.  D.  Beaston  for  the  Contractor,  and  Mr. 
W.  J.  Springborn  as  the  third  member.  They  agreed  on  the  price  as 
$127,414. 

Subsequently,  a  new  reduction  plant  was  built,  near  the  old  one, 
on  lands  owned  by  the  City,  and  with  railroad  sidings  provided.  The 
Cobwell  system  was  selected  and  built  at  a  cost  of  $645,000. 

F.  PRELIMINARY  ESTIMATES 

Investigations  for  refuse  disposal  generally  require  estimates  of 
the  first  cost  of  construction  and  of  the  annual  cost  of  the  various 
methods  of  disposal  which  would  be  sanitary  and  satisfactory  for  the 
local  conditions.  They  are  frequently  made  in  order  to  determine 
the  relative  costs  of  several  methods,  as  the  basis  for  a  selection. 
Therefore  they  sometimes  do  not  include  those  items  which  are  the 
same  in  all  estimates,  and,  consequently,  do  not  represent  the  actual 
final  costs.     Some  of  these  estimates  are  summarized  in  the  following: 

1.  Chicago.— In  1914,  Messrs.  I.  S.  Osborn  and  J.  T.  Fetherston 
made  an  exhaustive  study  of  the  refuse  collection  and  disposal  prob- 
lem in  Chicago.  Their  final  report,  embodying  the  results  of  this 
investigation,  discussed  six  projects,  "A"  to  "  F,"  for  the  collection 
and  disposal  of  refuse,  and  recommended  Project  "D"  as  the  one  best 
suited  to  the  needs  of  the  city.  A  brief  description  of  the  projects 
follows.     Table  160  gives  the  estimated  costs  of  the  different  projects. 

Project  "A." — This  project  covers  the  total  incineration  of  rubbish  and 
garbage,  and  a  portion  of  the  ashes.  The  city  is  divided  into 
eleven  districts,  with  a  loading  station  in  each  district  and  incinerator 
plants  in  nine  of  the  districts.  It  contemplates  the  collection  of  gar- 
bage and  rubbish  combined,  and  a  separate  collection  of  the  ashes. 


546     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


>     pi 

p> 

o 

0       a> 
0       < 

fixed 
Collect 
Loadin 
Street  ( 
Motor 
Water 
Inciner 

t3 
13 

c 

p 

apita 
Coll 
Stat 
Loai 
Stre 
Mot 
Wat 
Inci 

^ 

Q 

^ 

=  S  «>  b  2.^s-S  ^ 

O   CO 
CO    13 

1-1 

n 

3- 

3 
0 

3   g 
O 

-    i-j    cc 

►3    O 

3   O 

3    CT 

P 

o 

t 

•^    CO 

o 

-!    CD 

p 
o' 

p   1^ 

CD 

p 

c-l- 

o 

3 
ja 

CO 

O 
1 

3 

p 

p 

CO 

>5' 
B 

ii.  m 

Hj 

CD 

r^  ■ 

o' 

S" 

P 

o' 

13 

g= 

13 

CT? 

p 

c-t- 

§ 

O 

ro 

(Ti 

g 

S 

•5" 

p 

1' 

B 

fD 

p 

B 
p 

B' 

c-l- 
Oi 
13 
P 
13 
o 
a> 

p 

13 

^ 

m 

m 

m 

to 

o 

h-" 

4^ 

to 

m 

35 

\^ 

to       ^ 

Oi 

-vl 

H-'CO(33C5 

00 

CO  00  C7I 

Oi 

CO 

bo-PO     . 

^ 

CO 

j^^OCO 

►1^ 

o 

O  O  O  h^ 

> 

OiOO  CO 

h—i 

I— ' 

~'^fxV^-» 

o 

o 

o  o  o  o 

:; 

lO  to 

oi 

o 

hf^  i-'OO 

o 

o  o  o  o 

MCn 

to 

CO-      •      OiOJOO 

^ 

o-    •    oooo 

^ 

m 

m 

to 

w 

h- ' 

<i 

05 

^ 

o 

CO 

l-»        c;i 

c 

CO 

I-' CO  (33  35 

o 

05 

00O5G0 

S 

to 

rf^COOO 

oo-wo     . 

^:) 

CO 

jo^  to 

CO 

o 

oooco 

a 

GO  0<I 

-J 

"•<i 

Orf»-CO 

<I 

"o 

"o^oIdm 

:: 

Oh-' 

to 

CO  CD  00 

C71 

o 

OOOOi 

OH* 

'-' 

CO  •      •      MCO<35 

o 

o-    •    oooo 

:^ 

m 

y^ 

to 

to 

to 

^ 

to 

m 

o2S    "" 

<i 

*. 

to     ~o 

O 

CO 

H-i  t0  03(35 

X 

h-i 

(35  Cn  rfi. 

■o 

C7I 

03  en  (33  C3 

- 

bo.-^i^     , 

w 

CO 

CO  00  to 

JD 

hl^ 

oenoco 

o 

<©  h^^  Oi 

£> 

t*^ 

h*^05tJi. 

^ 

CO 

ooo^ 

;: 

OJtO 

'J\ 

en 

CnOht^ 

to 

■<t 

oooc;i 

Its 

OiO 

35 

hf^  •        ■        CFT  h-'  05 

:7i 

en        •     oooo 

p 

5© 

^ 

m 

1— ' 
"-"CO  to 

CO 

35 

w                 to      "--1 

171 

^5 
30CO  i-i        (-'(3505(33 

o 
(K 

35 

<I  GO  Oi  Cn  to  CO  (35 

33C0O^>t^O0500 

0 

05.Pi^        . 

-i 

■O  C»  CX)  05  05  to  (35 

•o 

coenotooooco 

Mi—Ol 

<l 

-' GO  to  (33  VI -J  to 

o 

JiOOOOOOOi 

- 

OOi 

35 

O  CO  Cn  CO  to  H-'  00 

oooooooo 
oooooooo 

^hJi- 

\5  to  CO  en  i4^  CO  (33 

= 

3^ 

m 

^ 

1— ' 

o 

1—' 

w 

^ 

"OitO 

35 

JO               to     "Vj 

:7i 

30(^1  h-i        i-'(35  050 

O 

'J  00  en  00  to  CD  (35 

CO 

K 

Oi-^i"       . 

O 

■O  00  00  Cji  (35  to  (35 

:n 

O^enJOJO  O^O^OM 

oo^iO) 

4i. 

->  bolo  WM'Vj'to 

o 

^  O  O  O  O  O  O  (iJi 

- 

CnOi 

o  CO  c;i  hf^  to  H^  00 

3 

oooooooo 

<Jh^ 

-* 

O  to  CO  Oi  M^  CO  (35 

3 

:« 

€« 

^ 

to 

O 

h- 1 

j3 

^ 

oSS 

<I        t 

^      i-i      to     "m 

35        C 

)0  *>.  l-i          l-'C5a505 

X) 

X)  00  (35  Cn  to  CO  03 

Ji 

33  CO  O  <I  (35  H- (35  CO 

^ 

bi"i^   . 

35 

<l  M  CJ1  (35  CD  (35  1— ' 

ooootooenoco 

CD  Oi  *- 

3 

35  CO  CO  (35  CO  00  M 

35 

jnOOOOOOen 

- 

00^ 

Ji 

35  to  O  CD  i--  H-' Oi^ 

N2 

DtOOOOOOO 

rf^Oi 

r> 

Ji  (33  to  Cn  rf^  O  <l 

J\ 

OCJiOOOOOO 

ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL  547 

Project  "  B." — This  project  covers  the  total  incineration  of  all  garbage, 
ashes,  and  rubbish,  and  the  collection  of  all  three  classes  of  refuse 
combined.  The  number  of  collection  districts,  loading  stations,  and 
incinerators  is  the  same  as  in  Project  "A,"  except  that  the  capacity 
of  the  incinerators  was  increased  in  order  to  dispose  of  the  larger 
quantity  of  ashes  to  be  incinerated. 

Project  "  C." — This  project  covers  the  total  incineration  of  all  garbage 
and  rubbish,  with  a  portion  of  the  ashes.  It  differs  from  Projects 
"  A  "  and  "  B  "  in  assuming  different  collection  districts.  The  city 
was  divided  into  nine  collection  districts,  with  a  loading  station  in 
each.  In  seven  of  the  districts  it  contemplates  the  erection  of  incin- 
erators adjoining  sewage  and  water  pumping  stations,  which  might 
be  available  for  utilizing  the  steam  produced  by  incinerator  plants. 
It  contemplates  the  combined  collection  of  garbage  and  rubbish,  and 
a  separate  collection  of  ashes. 

Project  "  D." — This  project  covers  the  disposal  of  garbage  in  a  central 
reduction  plant,  and  the  disposal  of  rubbish  in  small  incinerators 
at  each  loading  station,  except  in  the  district  comprising  the  Eighth 
and  Ninth  Wards,  which  is  provided  with  an  incinerator  for  the 
combined  incineration  of  all  garbage  and  rubbish.  The  city  is 
divided  into  fourteen  collection  districts,  with  a  loading  station  in 
each,  for  transfer  of  the  material  by  trolley,  barge,  auto-truck,  or 
wagon.  It  contemplates  the  separate  collection  of  ashes,  rubbish, 
and  garbage,  except  in  districts  where  total  incineration  is  proposed. 
All  ashes  are  to  be  disposed  of  by  filling, 

Project  "  £"."— This  is  the  same  as  Project  "  D,"  except  that  the  loca- 
tion of  the  works  is  assumed  to  be  on  the  drainage  canal  near  the 
western  city  limits,  necessitating  the  transfer  of  garbage  for  a  longer 
distance,  also  a  larger  quantity  to  be  transferred,  which,  under 
Project  "  D,"  would  be  delivered  directly  to  the  plant. 

Project  "  i^."— This  is  similar  to  Project  "  D."  The  difference  is  in  the 
disposal  of  rubbish.  In  this  project  the  rubbish  is  transferred  from 
loading  stations  to  one  of  four  incinerators,  where  it  would  be  burned 
and  the  power  utilized.  All  garbage  from  all  districts  is  to  be  dis- 
posed of  in  a  central  reduction  plant. 

It  was  assumed  that  the  population  would  be  2,905,000  in  1920, 
and  3,503,000  in  1930.  The  production  of  refuse,  in  pounds  per 
capita  per  year,  was  assumed  as  follows:  Garbage,  150  lb.;  ashes, 
700  1b.;  and  rubbish,  50  1b. 

The  cost  of  operating  the  incinerators  and  the  reduction  plant  was 
based  on  the  cost  of  overhead  charges,  labor,  fuel,  supphes,  repairs, 
and  renewals  required  to  dispose  of  the  quantities  to  be  produced  in 
1920. 

The  capacities  of  the  various  plants  were  based  on  the  estimated 
maximum  production  of  the  different  classes  of  refuse  for  1930. 


548     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  value  of  clinker  was  based  on  current  prices  for  similar  or 
equal  materials  used  for  pavement  foundations,  sidewalks,  and  similar 
concrete  work. 

The  grease  and  tankage  to  be  recovered  from  the  garbage  were 
estimated  to  be  3.25%  and  14%,  respectively,  of  the  total  weight  of 
the  garbage  as  delivered. 

The  price  of  grease  was  assumed  at  4  cents  per  lb.  and  the  price  of 
tankage  at  $7  per  ton. 

Interest  was  assumed  at  5%,  and  the  depreciation  (also  at  5%) 
was  based  on  a  sinking  fund  which  would  equal  the  cost  of  the  ele- 
ments making  up  the  plant. 

2.  Toronto. — A  report  on  the  best  means  of  disposing  of  the 
refuse  of  Toronto  was  submitted  to  the  Mayor  of  that  city  by  Hering 
and  Gregory,  Consulting  Engineers,  New  York  City,  in  1911.  The 
report  included  a  careful  study  of  the  relative  merits  of  incineration 
and  reduction  for  the  final  treatment  and  disposal  of  the  garbage,  and 
also  studies  of  the  possible  utilization  of  other  city  wastes  not  included 
under  garbage.  The  choice  of  methods  of  disposal  narrowed  down  to 
the  incineration  of  garbage  mixed  with  other  and  more  combustible 
refuse,  with  no  utilization  of  the  heat  of  combustion,  and  the  treat- 
ment of  garbage  alone  by  the  reduction  process  for  the  recovery  of 
grease  and  tankage  for  fertilizer  base,  and  with  the  separate  incinera- 
tion of  combustible  refuse.  The  low  price  at  which  hydro-electric 
power  is  available  in  Toronto,  acting  against  the  utilization  of  steam, 
turned  the  cost  in  favor  of  the  second  alternative.  If  the  salable 
portions  of  the  combustible  refuse  were  sorted  out  and  sold,  and  only 
the  remainder  burned,  the  estimates  indicated  a  small  profit  from 
the  combined  operations  of  the  reduction  works  and  incinerating 
plants;  otherwise,  there  would  be  a  slight  yearly  expense. 

A  summary  of  the  projects  follows: 

Project  "  A." — Incineration  of  the  garbage,  rubbish,  and  a  portion  of  the 
ashes  without  utilization  of  the  rubbish;  the  plant  to  consist  of  two 
215-ton  incinerators. 

Project  "  B." — Incineration  of  the  garbage,  rubbish,  and  a  portion  of 
the  ashes,  with  utilization  of  the  rubbish ;  the  plant  to  consist  of  two 
195-ton  incinerators;    no  utilization  of  steam. 

Project  "  C." — Reduction  of  the  garbage,  and  incineration  of  the  rubbish, 
without  utilization  of  the  rubbish;  the  plant  to  consist  of  one  240- 
ton  reduction  works  and  two  60-ton  incinerators. 

Project  "  D." — Reduction  of  the  garbage,  and  incineration  of  the  rubbish, 
with  utilization  of  the  rubbish;  the  plant  to  consist  of  one  240-ton 
reduction  works  and  two  40-ton  incinerators. 

Table  161  gives  comparative  estimates  of  the  first  cost  and  the 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


549 


annual  operating  costs  of  the  four  projects,  based  on  a  population  of 
600,000. 

TABLE  161. — Comparative  Estimates 
OF  THE  First  Cost  and  Annual  Operating  Costs  for  Four  Projects 
FOR  the  Disposal  of  Garbage,  Ashes,  and  Rubbish,  of  Toronto,  Ont.,  1911 


Projects 

Eatiniated 
cost  of 
con- 
struction 

KsTiMATED  Annual  Costs 

Gross 

cost  of 

operation 

Gross 
income 

Net  cost 

of 
operation 

Net 
income 

Project  "A": 
Two  215-ton  incinerators 

$478,400 

$124,940 

$124,940 

Project  "B": 
Two  195-ton  incinerators 

489,300 

166,750 

67,500 

99,070 

Project  "C": 
One    250-ton    reduction 
plant                    

538,200 
228,700 

169,970 
47,180 

210,000 

Two  60-ton  rubbish  in- 
cinerators  

$765,900 

$217,150 

$210,000 

$7,150 

Project  "D": 

One    250-ton    reduction 
plant 

Two  40-ton  rubbish  in- 
cinerators   

538,200 
255,300 

169,970 
92,570 

210,000 
67,500 

$793,500 

$262,480 

$277,500 

$15,020 

The  City,  fearing  that  a  possible  nuisance  might  result  from  the 
operation  of  a  garbage  reduction  plant,  and  after  building  the  incin- 
erator for  the  destruction  of  rubbish,  utilized  the  latter  plant  also 
for  the  incineration  of  garbage,  notwithstanding  the  greater  cost. 
The  cost  of  building  the  incinerator  is  given  on  page  520. 

3.  Trenton,  N.  J. — A  comparison  of  reduction  and  incineration  in 
their  relation  to  the  future  sewage  disposal  needs  of  Trenton  was 
made  in  1913  by  Hering  and  Gregory.  Using  this  comparison  as  a 
basis,  they  advised  that  all  garbage  and  rubbish,  with  at  least  20% 
of  the  ashes,  be  burned  in  a  high-temperature  incinerator  having  a  ca- 


550    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

pacity  of  120  tons  per  day;  that  a  power  plant  be  built  to  transmit  the 
electric  current  generated  by  the  heat  of  the  incinerator  to  a  pumping 
station  at  the  proposed  sewage  treatment  works;  and  that  a  clinker 
mill  be  built  to  prepare  the  clinker  from  the  incinerator  for  use  in 
concrete  foundations  under  street  pavements  or  otherwise. 

The  1913  population  of  Trenton  was  taken  at  110,000,  and  it  was 
assumed  that  in  1930  it  would  be  150,000.  During  1912  and  1913 
the  total  weight  of  garbage  and  rubbish  collected  was  270  lb.  per 
capita  per  year.  The  total  weight  of  ashes  for  the  same  period  was 
730  lb.  per  capita  per  year;  the  combined  weight  of  garbage,  ashes, 
and  rubbish  is,  accordingly,  1000  lb.  per  capita  per  year.  Estimating 
this  as  the  quantity  collected,  the  1930  population  might  supply 
13,500  tons  of  garbage,  6750  tons  of  rubbish,  and  54,750  tons  of  ashes 
per  year.  By  using  the  maximum  figures  for  1912,  a  maximum  weight 
of  mixed  refuse  per  day  of  123  tons  is  indicated. 

The  clinker  produced,  suitable  for  paving  work,  was  estimated  at 
5000  cu.  yd.  per  year,  and  its  value  was  taken  at  $1.00  per  cubic  yard. 

Table  162  gives  the  comparative  costs  of  construction  of  plants  for 
disposal,  respectively,  by  reduction  and  incineration.  Tables  163 
and  164  give  the  detailed  estimates  of  relative  operating  costs. 

4.  Summary. — The  many  considerations  and  elements  entering 
into  the  cost  of  refuse  disposal  works  in  America  make  it  impossible 
to  give  any  figures  for  preliminary  estimates  which  can  be  applied  to 
our  many  different  situations.  In  general,  however,  the  average 
range  of  costs  of  refuse  disposal  in  1910  was  estimated  as  in  Table  165. 
In  1920  the  costs  were  very  much  greater. 


G.  EUROPEAN  DATA 

In  England  and  on  the  continent  of  Europe  there  has  been  a  wide 
experience  with  refuse  incinerators.  A  number  of  plants  have  been 
inspected  by  the  authors,  and  for  several  of  them  the  following  notes, 
chiefly  on  labor  requirements,  were  made.  They  were  brought  up  to 
date  in  1911. 

1.  Birmingham,  England.  —  (Population,  525,000.)  Plant  con- 
sists of  two  units,  each  of  four  grates,  only  three  of  which  are  used; 
there  is  a  boiler  connected  with  each  unit;  about  65  tons  per  day  are 
burned;  clinker  and  dust  amount  to  34%  of  the  refuse.  Labor 
schedule  per  eight-hour  shift:  1  man  charging  and  2  clinkermen;  a 
foreman  works  on  the  day  shift  only;  total,  10  men. 

2.  Poplar  (London),  England.  —  (Population,  770,000.)  Plant 
consists  of  six  cells,  side  by  side  in  a  row,  and  two  water-tube  boilers; 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


551 


TABLE  162. — 'Estimated  Construction  Costs 

FOR    Refuse    Disposal    at   Trenton,    N.   J.    (1913j 


Method 

For  disposal 
of  refuse 

For  pumping 
sewage 

Totals 

Incineration 

Reduction 

Saving  in  favor  of  incineration  . 

$195,500 

241,500 

46,000 

$172,500 

174,800 

2.300 

$368,000 

416,300 

48,300 

TABLE    163. — ^Estimated    Net  Annual   Operating   Cost 
FOR  Incinerator  Plant  at  Trenton,  N.  J.  (1913) 

Incinerator 
Operation : 

Supervision  and  labor $13,680 

Removal  of  ashes 600 

Maintenance  and  repairs 1,700 

Crushing  and  cleaning  clinker 2,000 

—   $17,980 

Fixed  charges: 

Interest,  4.5%  on  $195,500 $  8,800 

Sinking  fund,  3.356%  on  $195,500 ....        6,560 


— —     15,360 

$33,340 

Income  from  sale  of  product: 

Clinker 5,000 

Total  estimated  net  annual  cost  of  operation  of  refuse 

incinerator $28,340 

Sewage  Pumping 
Operation: 

Labor  in  power  plant  at  incinerator. . .    $  2,520 

Labor  in  sewage  pumping  station 3,720 

Coal  for  Sunday  operation 1,140 

Oil,     waste,     packing,     miscellaneous 

supplies 750 

$  8,130 


FLxed  charges: 

Interest,  4.5%  on  $172,500 $  7,760 

Sinking  fund,  1.783%  on  $172,500. .  . .        3,080 


10,840 


Total  estimated  annual  cost  of  operation  of  sewage 

pumping  station 18,970 

Total  estimated  net  annual  cost  of  operation  of  refuse 

incinerator  and  sewage  pumping  station $47,310 


552     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

TABLE    164. — Estimated    Net    Annual    Operating    Cost 
FOR  Reduction  Plant  at  Trenton,  N.  J.  (1913) 

Additional  cost  of  separate  collection  for  garbage 
and  rubbish: 

Cost  of  separate  collection $65,140 

Cost  of  combined  collection 49,950 

$15,190 

Transporting    garbage    from    loading    station    to 

reduction  works: 

Labor  at  loading  station $800 

Labor  operating  motor  trucks 3,360 

Supplies  for  and  maintenance  of  motor  trucks .  .  .  6,030 

— ■      10,190 

Garbage  reduction  works: 

Supervision  and  labor $18,960 

Coal 12,750 

Naphtha 1,100 

Supplies  and  miscellaneous  expenses 2,500 

Repairs  and  renewals 1,500 

36,810 

Fixed  charges: 

Interest,  4.5%  on  $241,500 $10,870 

Sinking  fund,  3.356%  on  $241,500 8,100 

■ •      18,870 

$81,160 

Income  from  sale  of  product: 

Grease $28,350 

Tankage 10,400 

38,750 

Total  estimated  net  annual  cost  of  operation  of  reduction  works. .  .  .    $42,410 

Rubbish  Incinerator 
Operation : 

Labor $1,395 

Supplies  and  miscellaneous  expenses .  .  170 

Repairs  and  renewals 400 

Removal  of  ashes 405 

Total  estimated  annual  cost  of  operation 

of  rubbish  incinerator $  2,370 

Sewage  Pumping 
Operation : 

Labor  in  power  plant  at  reduction  works    $  5,760 

Labor  in  sewage  pumping  station 3,720 

Coal 7,140 

Oil,  waste,  packing,  and  miscellaneous 

supplies 750 

$17,370 

Fixed  charges: 

Interest,  4.5%  on  $174,800 $  7,870 

Sinking  fund,  1,783%  on  $174,800.  .  .  .        3,120 

10,990 

$28,360 

Total  estimated  net  annual  cost  of  operation  of  reduction  works, 

rubbish  incinerator,  and  sewage  pumping  station $73,140 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


553 


o 

xi       o 

p 

■D               P 

t-i 

r^        '-i 

cr 

^         ^ 

p 

/3                 P 

a> 

-•             .-D 

3 

1 

3 

!2- 

2.        ? 
3'       2 

« 

c 

-D            3 

(t) 

Q 

a       f^ 

P 

a          o 

-+            m 

O 

0             CO 

C3 

1 

^ 

O 

•1 

^ 

73 

1— ' 

m 

^ 

O 

O 

DO           >4i. 

P 

o 

o 

)4^ 

O           O 

n) 

o 

z 

O 

O           O 

0- 

rt- 

OS 

1-^ 

rl-             r1- 

o     o    '^ 

6 
to 

O              O 
1—             €« 

•a 
p 

" 

"3 

CD    ^ 

lO 

05             00 

D 

•-4 

00 

3 

rV 

B 

O 

o 

o        b 

"< 

z 

€« 

o 

O 

O 

to 

to 

_i 

o 

rf^ 

to 

S"  "^ 

r-f- 

c<- 

-t~ 

19     5 

b 

o 

0 

m 

s  =^ 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CO 

to 

00 

Oi 

+^ 

€« 

h-» 

O 

Ci 

o 

<l 

O^ 

-1 

O 

c 

Cn 

o 

:;i 

re 

" 

r^ 

r+- 

— f. 

*:3 

O 

o 

b 

p 

€« 

o' 

to 

h-i 

»-' 

3 

0 

> 

Or 

b 

to 

^ 

•4 

O 

o 

:ji 

p 

3 

a. 

Z 

d 
> 

^ 

to 

o 

o 

G. 

O 

o 

bo 

30 

IR 

' 

o 

*- 

hj^ 

^ 

O     »J 

re 

S 

rt- 

(Tl- 

r»- 

00      O 

p 

m 

o 

o         o 

o     p 

a. 

O 

to 

00 

CO 

C+- 

IX! 
O 

O 

00 

Ox 

-^ 

re* 

>- 

^ 

CO 

o 

5' 

0 

z 

o 

to 

B 

o 

o 

re 
2 

ri- 

C+- 

< 

o 

o 

4^ 

o 

(5 

i 

b 
o 
* 

en 
O 

-g^ 

o 

o 

1— ' 

CO 

•z 

to 

»f^ 

a 

r+- 

r»- 

o 

O 

o 

to 

h- ' 

o 

I— ' 

o 

Cn 

w 


554    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

capacity,  150  tons  daily;  plant  handles  120  tons  daily.  Labor  schedule 
per  shift:  1  craneman,  2  clinkerers,  2  wheelers,  1  boilerman;  and,  on 
the  day  shift,  1  foreman  and  1  helper;  total,  20.  The  steam  pro- 
duced, amounting  to  1.5  lb.  per  pound  of  refuse,  is  supplied  to  an 
electric  lighting  station. 

3.  Frankfort,  Germany. — (Population,  410,000.)  Serves  entire 
city;  handles  120  tons  per  day;  plant  comprises  five  units,  each  with 
four  grates  or  cells.  Labor  schedule:  2  men  charging,  6  men  clinker- 
ing,  and  1  craneman,  or  9  per  eight-hour  shift;  total,  27.  The  steam 
produced  per  ton  of  refuse  generates  70  kw.hr.,  8  of  which  are  required 
for  plant  operation. 

4.  Barmen,  Germany. — (Population,  142,000.)  Plant  of  special 
local  design;  handles  40  tons  in  summer,  up  to  80  tons  in  winter;  6 
cells  and  three  boilers;  clinker  ranges  from  50%  of  total  refuse  in 
summer  up  to  70%  in  winter.  Labor  schedule :  2  men  charging,  4  to  6 
clinkermen,  8  to  10  general  laborers;  total,  14  to  18.  The  men  all 
work  in  eight-hour  shifts.  The  plant  is  reported  to  generate  400 
kw.hr.  of  electrical  energy,  which  is  valued  at  about  0.7  cent 
per  kw.hr. 

5.  Zurich,  Switzerland. — (Population,  150,000.)  Serves  entire 
city;  capacity,  90  tons  per  day;  original  plant  consisted  of  twelve 
"  Horsfall "  cells,  hand-charged;  two  cells  fitted  with  automatic 
charging  apparatus  in  1908,  and  others  to  follow. 

Labor  Schedule 

Old  Cells  New  Cells 

4  Firemen  4  Firemen 

2  Clinkermen  1  Clinkerman 

4  Stokers  0  Stoker 

2  Helpers  1  Helper 

1  Craneman  1  Craneman 

1  Weigher  1  Weigher 

1  Superintendent  1  Superintendent 

15  9 

Firemen,  clinkermen,  and  stokers  work  on  eight-hour  shifts^^two 
in  summer  and  three  in  winter.  Other  men  work  a  nine-hour  day. 
Dust  and  fine  ashes  are  sold  for  about  25  cents  per  cubic  yard. 
Crushed  clinker  brings  50  cents  per  cubic  yard.  Tin  and  scrap  iron 
bring  about  35  cents  per  100  lb.  The  clinker  crushing  plant  cost 
$16,000,  and  requires  three  men  for  operation;  the  revenue  from  dust, 
clinker,  tin,  and  iron,  is  about  $4000  per  year. 


ESTIMATING  COSTS  OF  FINAL  DISPOSAL 


555 


6,  Labor  Required  in  European  Plants. — A  summary  of  the  labor 
required  for  operation  in  a  few  of  the  foregoing  plants  is  given  in 
Table  166. 

TABLE  166.— Labor  Schedules 
AT  Some  European  Refuse  Incinerators 

See  also  Tables  100  and  101 


Plant 


Birmingham 

Poplar 

Frankfort.  . 
Barmen .... 


Total 

number  of  men 

employed 


10 
20 

27 
16 


Average 
number  of  tons 
per  day  burned 


65 
120 
120 

60 


Average 

number  of 

tons  burned 

per  man 

per  hour 


0.81 
0.75 
0.56 
0.47 


H.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

To  estimate  the  actual  total  costs  of  the  final  disposal  of  refuse,  it  is 
necessary  to  state  them  as  annual  charges.  First,  all  the  fixed  charges 
should  be  ascertained,  such  as  interest  on  investment,  depreciation, 
etc.,  and  secondly,  the  operating  costs,  such  as  supervision,  labor, 
power,  supplies,  etc.  In  this  way  the  relative  cost  values  of  different 
methods  of  disposal  can  be  most  safely  ascertained. 

The  investment  cost  includes  the  expenses  for  engineering  and 
legal  services,  for  land,  and  construction.  It  can  be  given  either  in 
gross  sums  or,  better,  as  costs  per  ton  of  rated  capacity. 

The  operating  costs  per  annum  are  usually  given  for  salaries,  wages, 
materials,  etc.,  but  they  should  be  given  also,  as  far  as  practicable,  in 
terms  independent  of  the  varying  wages,  i.e.,  as  man-hours  or  ton- 
hours.  To  find  the  cost  at  any  time,  it  is  then  necessary  only  to  mul- 
tiply the  prevailing  wage  rate  at  that  time  by  the  number  of  man- 
hours. 

Regarding  valuations  for  purposes  of  sale,  we  have  inserted  the 
case  of  the  Chicago  Reduction  Works  as  the  best  available  example 
according  to  which  valuations  of  refuse  disposal  works  may  be  deter- 
mined. 

We  have  added  some  labor  data  from  incinerating  works  in  Eng- 
land, Germany,  and  Switzerland  for  comparison  with  the  labor 
engaged  on  our  works. 

Fetherston  states,  after  an  inspection  of  twenty-seven  plants  in 
England,  that  each  man  could  handle  0.88  ton  per  hour,  and  that,  at 


556     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

an  easy  rate  of  working,  there  should  be  no  difficulty  in  burning  0.75 
ton  per  man  per  hour.  This  conclusion  may  not  necessarily  apply  to 
American  conditions.  Yet,  we  are  strongly  of  the  opinion  that  it 
would  be  more  helpful  in  regulating  our  work,  if  we  would  record  our 
labor  data  as  tons  burned  per  man  per  hour,  instead  of  in  day's  wages, 
and  thereby  directly  indicate  the  efficiencies  of  method,  apparatus, 
and  labor,  which  we  indicate  less  perfectly  at  present,  or  not  at  all. 


CHAPTER   XIII 
SELECTING  THE  METHOD  OF  DISPOSAL 

A.  INFLUENCE  OF  LOCAL  CONDITIONS 

The  choice  of  the  most  suitable  method  of  refuse  disposal  for  a 
given  place  is  governed  by  certain  general  and  special  conditions. 
Thus  we  find  that  in  Europe  the  incineration  of  mixed  refuse,  or 
disposal  by  land-fill,  or  burial,  are  practically  the  only  methods  in  use. 
In  England  and  Germany  labor  is  cheaper  than  in  America,  but,  in 
many  parts,  coal  is  more  costly  and  this  favors  incineration.  In  the 
largest  cities  of  America,  the  reduction  method  has  been  most  common, 
for  two  reasons:  Our  greater  per  capita  waste  makes  the  recover}^  of 
marketable  products  from  garbage  profitable;  and  the  rapid  expan- 
sion of  our  cities  has  in  some  respects  rather  favored  a  separate 
collection  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish,  which  makes  the  reduction 
method  possible  and  practicable. 

In  the  early  stages  of  city  growth,  the  disposal  of  garbage  requires 
attention  before  that  of  ashes  and  rubbish.  On  account  of  the  fre- 
quent lack  of  available  community  funds,  the  two  latter  are  often 
left  to  the  householder  for  private  disposal.  Compared  with  Europe, 
our  cities  are  spread  over  wider  areas,  so  that  many  places  for  dump- 
ing ashes  and  rubbish  are  usuallj^  available.  This  method  of  a  sepa- 
rate disposal,  therefore,  has  been  allowed  to  continue,  while  European 
cities,  with  more  congested  areas  and  fewer  vacant  lots,  favored  a 
mixed  collection.  Mainly  on  these  grounds,  they  have  generally 
adopted  incineration. 

Feeding  garbage  at  piggeries  has  been  particularly  prevalent  in 
the  New  England  States.  This  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  hog  food 
costs  more  in  New  England  than  elsewhere,  and,  therefore,  that  more 
money  can  be  paid  for  the  collection  of  garbage.  Further,  we  find 
that  most  of  the  reduction  plants  in  America  are  economical  chiefly  in 
the  largest  cities  in  the  Northern  States.  In  the  South,  garbage  con- 
tains more  vegetable  and  less  animal  waste,  and,  therefore,  less  grease. 
It  is  also  possible  that  the  higher  average  temperature  of  the  air  in  the 
South  has  been  the  cause  of  more  rapid  decomposition  and  conse- 

557 


558     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

quently  more  intense  odors  at  the  works,  requiring  more  expense  for 
proper  control  than  in  the  North.  The  high  price  of  food  caused  by 
the  late  war  has  resulted  in  general  economy,  with  a  consequent 
reduction  of  the  wasted  grease,  and  less  profit  for  reduction  works. 

The  burial  of  garbage  is  more  suitable  for  small  and  isolated  cities 
than  for  large  ones,  because  of  the  long  hauls  usually  required  for  the 
latter.  Incineration  of  mixed  refuse  is  suitable  for  both  large  and 
small  cities.  Even  within  the  built-up  parts  of  cities  it  has  been 
practiced  without  objection,  with  the  result  that  the  hauls  are  shorter. 

Cities  in  the  South,  and  those  in  districts  where  natural  gas  is 
available,  cannot  produce  as  much  waste  heat  and  power  as  those 
using  coal  for  domestic  purposes.  Therefore,  incineration  may  not 
be  economical  everywhere.  In  cities  where  most  of  the  cooking  and 
heating  is  done  by  gas  or  oil,  and  the  opportunities  for  burning 
rubbish  at  the  house  are  restricted,  the  combustible  value  of  collected 
rubbish  may  be  correspondingly  increased.  A  favorable  location 
of  cities  with  reference  to  a  good  market  for  grease  and  tankage  may 
strongly  influence  the  adoption  of  the  reduction  method. 

Finally,  in  the  same  city,  different  districts  may  find  different 
disposals  advisable.  Even  in  the  same  district  this  may  be  found 
advantageous.  For  instance,  a  small  part  of  the  garbage— the  best 
part,  as  from  hotels  and  restaurants — will,  for  economical  reasons, 
probably  always  be  fed  to  animals,  whatever  may  be  the  disposal  of 
the  bulk  of  it.  Another  part,  which  has  become  unsuitable  for  either 
feeding  or  grease  extraction — due  to  age  or  admixtures,  and  where 
dumping  is  also  impracticable — will  probably  always  be  incinerated, 
for  sanitary  reasons. 

B.  OTHER  CONTROLLING  ELEMENTS 

In  some  cases  the  method  of  disposal  is  forced  on  the  community 
by  conditions  beyond  the  control  of  the  city  officers,  and  this  may 
have  an  important  influence  directly  on  the  system  of  collection  and 
house  treatment.  For  instance,  if  reduction  or  hog  feeding  is  used, 
it  is  necessary  to  have  a  strictly  separate  collection  of  garbage. 
In  some  districts  of  New  York  city  ash  cans  often  contain  some 
garbage,  and  garbage  cans  receive  enough  ashes  and  rubbish  to 
make  it  necessary  to  pick  over  this  material  before  the  garbage  can 
be  utilized  for  grease  extraction  or  for  hog  feeding. 

Since,  in  New  York  City,  the  reduction  works  on  Staten  Island 
went  into  the  hands  of  a  receiver,  and  the  garbage  has  been  tem- 
porarily disposed  of  at  sea,  there  has  been  a  gradual  tendency  to 
mix  tke  different  classes  of  refuse  in  the  house  cans  and  collecting 


SELECTING  THE  METHOD  OF  DISPOSAL  559 

carts,  because  more  convenient.  Similar  conditions  have  been 
encountered  also  in  Boston. 

The  rejection  of  such  mixtures  by  the  collectors  would  evidently 
cause  some  inconvenience  to  the  inhabitants,  and  would  necessitate 
not  onlj'  a  special  collection,  at  increased  cost,  but  also  a  separate 
disposal  for  such  mixed  material,  probably  by  incineration. 

If  the  local  conditions  indicate  the  best  method  of  disposing  of 
the  refuse  to  be  incineration,  then  it  is  an  advantage  to  mix  it  at  the 
house.  In  the  case  of  separate  collection,  the  householder  may  be 
requested  to  drain  garbage  of  its  free  moisture  before  placing  it  in 
the  house  can,  as  is  done  in  Minneapolis,  Trenton,  and  other  cities. 
If  the  rubbish  is  to  be  picked  over  for  recovering  the  salable  matter,  as 
at  Buffalo,  the  householder  should  be  required  to  deposit  all  the  rub- 
bish in  the  can  as  free  from  other  matter  as  possible.  Where  the  gar- 
bage is  to  be  fed  to  hogs,  and  the  collector  can  pay  a  price  for  it,  there 
is  an  inducement  to  the  householder  to  keep  it  separate  and  clean. 

A  system  of  collection  requiring  an  extra  can  at  each  house  will 
increase  the  community  cost  by  the  value  of  the  cans,  by  their 
replacement  every  few  years,  and  sometimes  by  the  fact  that  it  is 
necessary  to  have  a  greater  number  of  wagons  and  collections. 

Sufficient  records  are  not  yet  available  to  indicate  in  every  case 
the  economical  relation  between  the  disposal  method  and  the  manner 
of  collection  or  the  house  treatment.  For  each  community,  the 
economies  of  this  relation  should  be  specially  determined. 

C.  ACTUAL  REPORTS 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  statements  it  is  interesting  to  note  the 
recommendations  for  refuse  disposal  made  in  various  cities  in  America. 
In  December,  1907,  Hering  studied  the  conditions  in  Milwaukee,  and 
summarized  the  recommendations,  as  follows: 

"  Two  projects  are  available:  First,  the  reduction  of  garbage  at  Mequon 
[7  miles  from  the  city]  and  the  incineration  of  other  refuse  at  the  foot  of  Erie 
Street.  Secondly,  incineration  of  aU  refuse  at  the  foot  of  Erie  Street.  Both 
projects  should  give  satisfaction,  and  both  would  be  in  line  with  future  neces- 
sities and  provide  a  sanitary  solution  of  the  refuse  disposal  problem  of  your 
city.  It  remains,  therefore,  that  their  relative  preferences  should  be  deter- 
mined by  their  cost.  .  .  .  From  the  cost  summary  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
reduction  project  is  the  more  expensive  one.  ...  In  view  of  the  facts  and 
conclusions  set  forth  above,  it  is  my  opinion  that  a  plant  built  at  the  foot  of 
Erie  Street  for  the  incineration  of  garbage,  together  with  all  other  objec- 
tionable waste,  will  not  only  be  a  satisfactory  solution  of  your  problem,  but 
will  be  the  most  economical  one,  the  more  so  as  the  works  are  increased  and 
receive,  besides  the  garbage  and  rubbish,  also  the  domestic  ashes." 


560     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

In  1911,  Hering  and  Gregory  made  an  exhaustive  report  on  refuse 
disposal  for  Toronto.  The  following  summary  and  recommendation 
is  taken  therefrom: 

"  In  view  of  the  facts  above  set  forth,  we  find  that  for  the  City  of  Toronto, 
the  reduction  process  for  converting  the  garbage  into  salable  products,  the 
incineration  of  rubbish,  and  the  utilization  of  the  ashes  for  filling  land  or  for 
other  purposes,  is  materially  cheaper  than  incinerating  both  the  garbage  and 
the  rubbish,  together  with  a  sufficient  part  of  the  ashes  required  to  generate 
the  necessary  heat  for  a  complete  incineration  of  the  organic  matter. 

"  Besides  the  financial  side  of  the  question,  which  it  was  the  main  purpose  of 
this  report  to  deal  with,  there  are  other  sides  which  should  be  kept  in  mind, 
and  therefore  should  be  at  least  briefly  mentioned. 

"  The  reduction  system  requires  that  the  garbage  and  ashes  be  separated 
at  the  house  and  placed  in  different  receptacles,  that  separate  collections  of 
these  three  classes  of  refuse  be  maintained,  that  strictly  enforced  ordinances 
must  be.  established,  to  avoid  any  mixing  of  the  several  classes  of  refuse  at  the 
house,  and  that,  to  facilitate  this  enforcement,  collection  of  the  different  classes 
of  refuse  should  be  made  on  different  days. 

"  When  the  interests  of  the  householder  are  considered,  the  fact,  weU 
recognized  in  Europe,  and  here  and  there  also  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic, 
must  be  admitted,  that  a  single  receptacle  for  all  of  the  refuse  is  apt  to  encour- 
age greater  cleanliness  about  the  premises,  as  well  as  greater  simplicity  in  the 
servants'  work  and  a  better  obedience  to  the  respective  city  ordinances. 

"  With  a  separate  collection,  as  in  New  York  City,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  there  is  a  constant  and  troublesome  tendency,  well  recognized  by  the 
collection  department,  to  throw  rubbish  and  ashes  into  the  garbage  pail  or 
garbage  and  rubbish  into  the  ash  pail.  Similar  experience  is  reported  also 
from  Boston  and  elsewhere.  A  mixed  collection  avoids  the  above  troubles. 
The  financial  value  of  this  condition  must  be  determined  by  yourselves. 

"  The  reduction  system  further  requires  the  city  to  enter  into  the  business 
of  selling  grease  and  tankage  in  the  best  markets  in  the  world,  of  entering  into 
competition  with  other  producers,  and  of  taking  the  chances  of  the  market. 
It  is  true  that  in  Cleveland  and  Columbus  this  fact  does  not  seem  to  have 
caused  any  disadvantages.  In  our  comparison  of  cost,  we  have  not  taken  the 
actual  profits  derived  in  those  cities,  but  have  slightly  reduced  them  for 
Toronto.  The  financial  value,  also,  of  this  condition,  namely,  the  undertaking 
by  the  city  of  a  business  enterprise  on  the  present  known  facts,  must  also  be 
estimated  by  you. 

"  The  unfortunate  and  unwarranted  experience  with  most  of  the  reduction 
works  in  the  past  and  present,  namely,  the  escape  from  them  of  offensive 
effluvia,  may  have  the  effect  of  a  weighty  opposition  to  the  establishment 
of  such  a  plant  on  the  part  of  neighboring  property  owners.  While  there  is 
no  real  ground  whatever  for  such  opposition  at  the  works  considered  for  the 
City  of  Toronto,  and  of  which  perhaps  Columbus  may  give  the  best  proof, 
yet  it  must  also  be  left  to  you  to  estimate  the  financial  value  of  such  oppo- 
sition. 


SELECTING  THE  METHOD  OF  DISPOSAL  561 

"  On  the  other  hand,  to  assist  you  in  estimating  these  values,  let  it  be  said 
that  experience  in  the  United  States  has  shown  no  lack  of  opposition  to  placing 
refuse  incinerators  in  or  near  inhabited  districts.  This  opposition  is  due  to 
the  nuisances  generally  caused  by  the  older  and  unscientific  designs  for  such 
incinerators,  which  are  not  inherent  to  the  incineration  method.  In  all  of  the 
latest  designs  for  high-temperature  furnaces,  all  offensive  odors  can  be  as 
readily  prevented  as  in  the  latest  designs  for  reduction  works.  Incineration 
plants  are  situated  in  built-up  parts  of  cities  in  England  and  Germany  without 
any  objection,  and  on  the  American  continent  we  can  point  chiefly  to  West- 
mount  (Montreal),  Richmond  (New  York  City),  and  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  as 
furnishing  examples  of  odorless  incinerators. 

"  Again,  an  incinerator  plant  which  reduces  its  annual  cost  by  the  sale  of 
power  and  clinker  also  requires  the  city  to  sell  both  products.  Steam  is  sold 
for  heating  or,  by  conversion  into  electricity,  for  power,  and  clinker  is  sold  for 
making  roads,  artificial  stone,  concrete,  etc.  This  feature  is  relatively  favor- 
able toward  incineration.  The  steam  or  electricity  in  most  cases  is  not  sold 
in  competition  but  is  utilized  for  municipal  works,  for  pumping  or  lighting, 
while  the  clinker  is  also  used  for  public  works;  therefore,  the  element  of  com- 
petitive business  in  such  cases  is  largely  eliminated. 

"  Finally,  and  irrespective  of  cost,  there  is  a  difference  between  the  two 
types  of  works  in  the  collection  system,  for  as  one  is  more  complex  than  the 
other,  their  relative  value,  to  you,  should  also  be  estimated  by  you." 

An  investigation,  made  in  I9I4  for  Chicago,  by  Osborn  and  Fether- 
ston  resulted  in  the  following  recommendations: 

"1.  That  the  City  should  own  and  operate  a  complete  refuse  collection 
and  transportation  equipment,  also  refuse  disposal  works. 

"2.  That  regular  and  systematic  collection  of  separated  classes  of  wastes 
(ashes,  garbage,  and  rubbish),  be  made  at  daily  or  tri-weekly  intervals,  depend- 
ing on  the  character  of  the  districts  served  and  the  seasons  of  the  year. 

"3.  That  the  laws  regarding  house  treatment  in  respect  to  the  separation 
of  the  different  classes  of  waste  be  strictly  enforced. 

"4.  That  separation  of  all  classes  of  refuse  be  made  by  the  householders, 
except  in  districts  where  the  combined  refuse  is  disposed  of  by  incineration. 

"  5.  That  separated  garbage  be  treated  by  the  reduction  process  at  a 
central  plant,  located  for  service  by  barges  to  be  used  in  transporting  the 
material  from  waterfront  loading  stations,  except  such  garbage  as  may  be 
economically  hauled  by  wagon  or  truck  direct  to  the  plant. 

"6.  That  separated  ashes  be  disposed  of  by  filling  low  lands  or  depressions 
in  need  of  grading,  and,  as  far  as  practicable,  that  such  lands  be  purchased  by 
the  City,  so  as  to  secure  the  benefit  from  the  enhanced  value  derived  from  the 
improvement. 

"7.  That  small  incinerators  be  constructed  at  each  loading  station  for 
burning  the  separated  combustible  rubbish.  Other  classes  of  rubbish,  includ- 
ing metals,  glassware,  etc.,  should  be  reclaimed  at  the  loading  stations  and  sold. 
The  unsalable  and  incombustible  rubbish  should  be  disposed  of  with  the  ashes. 

"8.  That  the  present  garbage  loading  stations  be  remodeled,  and  that  at 


562     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

least  three  additional  garbage  loading  stations  be  provided  on  the  river  or 
canal. 

"9.  That  a  loading  station  for  ashes  be  provided  in  each  district  where 
street-car  transportation  is  more  economical  than  direct  team  haul  to  dumps. 

"  10.  That  garbage  receiving  stations  for  motor  trucks  be  provided,  to 
reduce  the  team  haul. 

"11.  That  a  modern  high-temperature  refuse  incinerator  be  installed  at 
Stony  Island  Avenue  and  95th  Street,  to  dispose  of  the  combined  refuse  from 
that  district. 

"12.  That  the  mechanical  analyses  and  tests  of  refuse  started  early  this 
year  be  continued  for  a  period  of  at  least  one  year  or  longer,  to  determine  the 
seasonal  variation  of  the  several  classes  of  waste. 

"13.  That  a  competent  technical  staff  be  employed  to  develop,  install, 
and  operate  for  at  least  one  year  the  project  herein  recommended,  and  to  make 
such  further  studies  and  tests  necessary  to  determine  in  detail  the  most  suit- 
able types  of  receptacles  and  equipment  for  a  model  collection  service. 

"  14.  That  the  maintenance  division,  in  charge  of  the  collection  and  dis- 
posal systems  installed,  be  provided  by  the  technical  staff  with  carefully  deter- 
mined standards  of  performance  and  unit  costs,  in  order  that  proper  control 
may  be  exercised  over  the  work. 

"  15.  That  three  million  five  hundred  and  thirteen  thousand  dollars 
($3,513,000)  be  provided  for  the  purpose  of  collection  and  transportation 
equipment,  and  the  construction  of  Reduction  Works  and  Incinerator  Plants. 
Of  this  sum,  eighty-five  thousand  dollars  ($85,000)  should  be  made  available 
for  the  first  year's  expenses  of  the  technical  staff." 

An  investigation  in  Danville,  111.  (1916),  by  Greeley,  resulted  in 
the  following  recommendations: 

"  1.  That  an  ordinance  should  be  adopted,  establishing  proper  sanitary 
methods  for  the  house  treatment  of  refuse  and  the  stable  treatment  of  manure. 

"  2.  That  10  collection  wagons  be  purchased,  at  an  estimated  cost  of 
$3,850.     Specifications  should  be  prepared  and  bids  received. 

"  3.  That  a  permanent  system  for  garbage  collection  should  be  established, 
to  give  regular  service  twice  a  week.  The  wagons  should  be  owned  by  the 
city,  and  the  horses  and  collectors  should  be  hired.  Collectors  should  be 
required  to  wear  khaki  or  duck  uniforms. 

"4.  That  garbage  should  be  disposed  of  for  the  present  by  burial  at  two 
fields  located  on  each  side  of  the  city.  The  estimated  cost  of  weighing  scales, 
roadways,  etc.,  at  the  burial  fields  is  $4,180.  Garbage  should  be  given  to 
farmers  who  call  for  it  in  proper  wagons  at  these  fields,  thus  reducing  the  amount 
of  garbage  to  be  buried. 

"5.  Proposals  should  be  entertained  for  disposal  of  garbage  by  contract 
at  some  isolated  location  at  an  annual  cost  favorable  to  the  city.  Such 
arrangement  should  include  a  formal  contract  in  which  the  character  of  plant 
and  equipment  is  clearly  defined  to  be  of  a  type  that  can  be  operated  on  a 
sanitary  basis.     The  contract,  however,  should  not  include  collection. 

"6.  A  site  with  an  area  of  about  one  acre  should  be  purchased  along  the 


SELECTING  THE  METHOD  OF  DISPOSAL  563 

Chicago  and  Eastern  Illinois  Ry.,  at  some  location  near  the  center  of  produc- 
tion of  refuse.  The  site  should  be  used  for  shipping  tins  and  rubbish  to  the 
market.  It  should  be  reserved  for  a  future  incinerator,  when  disposal  of 
garbage  by  burial  or  otherwise  is  no  longer  feasible,  due  to  the  increased  pop- 
ulation, and  scarcity  of  land  for  burial. 

"  7.  As  the  garbage  collection  service  becomes  established,  the  collection 
of  tins  and  rubbish  should  be  started,  and  they  should  be  shipped  to  the  mar- 
ket for  sale.  After  a  site  is  secured,  plans  and  specifications  should  be  drawn 
up  for  a  loading  station  for  these  materials." 

The  foregoing  recommendations  for  refuse  disposal  at  Danville 
offer  a  program  which  can  be  developed  progressively  as  funds 
permit.  The  collection  of  garbage  can  be  started  at  once.  For  the 
immediate  future,  the  garbage  collected  can  be  disposed  of  by  burial. 
In  the  meantime  a  site  can  be  purchased  along  the  railroad  for  the 
establishment  of  a  loading  or  transfer  station  for  rubbish  and  tins. 
The  collection  of  these  materials,  even  at  infrequent  intervals,  is 
desirable,  and  will  eliminate  the  cost  and  trouble  of  an  annual  clean-up 
campaign.  This  site  would  be  available  at  any  time  for  the  con- 
struction of  an  incinerator. 

Perhaps  the  most  significant  of  the  foregoing  Chicago  recommen- 
dations is  the  one  calling  for  a  technical  staff.  It  has  been  partly 
adopted,  and  the  money  appropriated  by  the  Common  Council.  A 
similar  recommendation  has  been  adopted  at  Toronto.  Many  fail- 
ures and  much  waste  of  public  money  could  be  avoided  if  the  refuse 
disposal  problem  were  given  more  technical  study  by  city  officials. 

D.  DATA  REQUIRED 

It  is  essential  to  know  all  the  general  and  local  conditions  which 
determine  the  choice  of  the  method  of  disposal,  and  this  is  possible 
only  by  collecting  and  tabulating  the  necessary  data  governing  the 
case.  These  data  should  extend  over  a  period  of  at  least  one  year,  in 
order  to  embrace  the  different  seasonal  conditions.  As  the  average 
yearly  production  of  refuse  is  likely  to  differ  much  from  the  maxi- 
mum and  minimum,  it  is  not  always  safe  to  use  it,  when  estimating  the 
capacity  of  disposal  works,  although,  occasionally,  this  has  been  done. 
If  the  power  of  a  plant  to  generate  electric  light,  and  to  be  operated 
by  the  steam  from  an  incinerator,  should  be  estimated  from  the 
average  annual  quantity  of  refuse,  the  electric  power  produced  during 
the  summer  or  autumn  would  fall  short. 

The  best  method  of  refuse  disposal  for  a  given  locality  can  be 
determined  only  after  a  careful  technical  and  engineering  investiga- 
tion, based  on  sufficient  information  covering  the  house  treatment, 


564     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

the  collection,  the  transportation,  and  the  final  disposal,  as  herein 
set  forth  at  length.  The  data  should  include,  besides  the  cost  of  the 
plant,  also  the  cost  of  operating  it  continuously,  as  well  as  the  fixed 
charges. 

The  details  of  refuse  disposal  plants  are  being  improved  con- 
tinually, and  all  cities,  including  the  smallest  ones,  can  well  afford  to 
keep  accurate  measurements  and  records,  thus  obtaining  the  required 
data,  so  that  they  may  be  ready  to  improve  and  enlarge  their  disposal 
systems  whenever  it  is  found  economical  or  desirable  to  do  so. 

The  contract  system  for  disposal  works,  in  which  the  taxpayers  are 
not  personally  interested,  is  desirable  only  when  there  is  a  marked 
economy  and  when  the  term  of  the  contract  is  long  enough  to  guar- 
antee the  return  of  the  money  invested  on  a  forced  sale. 

E.  CONCLUSIONS 

It  may  be  helpful  to  recapitulate  the  general  conclusions  reached  in 
the  foregoing,  regarding  the  respective  values  of  the  different  methods 
of  disposal. 

The  first  and  most  important  value  is  the  degree  of  sanitation 
which  can  be  attained.  The  second  value  is  based  on  the  cost,  and 
the  third  on  questions  of  expediency. 

We  can  state  the  relative  sanitary  and  economical  values  of  the 
disposal  methods  by  themselves,  irrespective  of  the  collection  methods, 
as  follows : 

1.  Dumping  all  refuse  into  water  or  on  land  has  the  least  sanitary 
value  of  the  available  methods.  It  also  yields  no  profit,  except  pos- 
sibly a  slight  one  in  the  case  of  land  making. 

2.  Shallow  burial  of  garbage  can  be  a  good  sanitary  method  under 
careful  supervision.  It  may  yield  a  slight  profit  when  fertilizing 
sandy  soil.  The  disposal  of  ashes  and  rubbish  requires  a  separate 
treatment. 

3.  Hog  feeding  at  specially  arranged  farms,  if  properly  operated, 
can  satisfy  all  sanitary  requirements.  It  is  the  most  profitable 
method  of  fresh  garbage  disposal.  The  disposal  of  ashes  and  rubbish 
requires  a  separate  treatment. 

4.  The  reduction  of  garbage  to  grease  and  tankage,  if  properly 
arranged  and  operated,  can  satisfy  all  sanitary  requirements.  After 
hog  feeding,  it  is  the  most  economical  method  of  garbage  disposal. 
The  disposal  of  ashes  and  rubbish  requires  a  separate  treatment. 

5.  Incineration  of  all  refuse  is  the  most  sanitary  process  for  dis- 
posing at  once  of  all  objectionable  matter.  Under  some  conditions, 
and  in  most  cities  of  Europe,  it  is  also  the  most  economical  method. 

When  planning  works  for  the  future,  it  is  often  necessary  to  esti- 


SELECTING  THE  METHOD  OF  DISPOSAL  565 

mate  the  value  of  expediency,  depending  on  the  general  local  ten- 
dencies toward  a  possible  change  in  conditions  and  habits.  Where 
low  areas  or  ravines  can  be  filled  with  refuse  without  objection,  and 
at  a  saving  of  cost,  it  would  be  justifiable  to  use  this  method  tem- 
porarily, or  until  the  conditions  change.  Where  it  is  evident  that  the 
use  of  coal  will  be  superseded  by  the  use  of  oil  or  gas,  it  would  be  quite 
proper,  with  reasonable  allowances,  to  build  works  for  the  conditions 
of  the  near  future,  instead  of  the  present. 

With  the  tendencies  to  conserve  the  grease  in  the  kitchen  and  to 
feed  more  garbage  to  hogs,  yet  not  to  lessen  the  rejected  combustible 
rubbish,  there  will  be  a  corresponding  tendency  to  increase  relatively 
the  combustible  parts  of  refuse  and  to  decrease  the  quantity  of  wasted 
grease,  thus  favoring  incineration  rather  than  reduction,  as  has  been 
demonstrated  in  Europe,  with  its  more  settled  social  habits. 

When  the  public  is  willing  to  pay  a  higher  price  for  a  better  method 
of  collecting  and  of  disposing  of  the  refuse,  it  would  be  justifiable  to 
adopt  the  more  expensive  method. 

The  cost  of  labor  is  less  for  a  modern  incinerator,  with  mechanical 
apparatus  for  feeding  and  clinkering,  than  for  a  reduction  plant. 
Therefore,  the  gradual  increase  of  labor  cost  in  the  future  \\ill  tend 
to  become  relatively  less  for  incineration  than  reduction  works, 
and  it  will  be  evident,  assuming  a  case  where,  for  a  given  city,  the 
estimates  of  total  cost,  including  the  collection,  and  the  revenues 
for  incineration  and  reduction  are  equal,  that  the  future  tendency  will 
be  toward  the  cost  of  incineration  becoming  less  than  that  of  re- 
duction. 

To  summarize: 

In  order  to  select  the  best  method  of  disposing  of  the  solid  refuse  of 
a  community,  we  must  base  the  preference  on  three  requirements: 
Sanitation,  economy,  and  expediency. 

Table  167  indicates  conspicuously  the  several  sanitary  methods  of 
treatment.  Incinerators,  it  will  be  seen,  can  dispose  of  all  kinds  of 
refuse,  without  exception.  If  the  temperature  in  the  furnace  is 
maintained  at  a  sufficiently  high  point,  it  gives  the  best  insurance  for 
a  complete  destruction  of  pathogenic  bacteria  and  for  the  avoidance 
of  nuisance  from  the  putrefaction  of  organic  matter.  It  should  be 
preferred,  therefore,  unless,  at  a  smaller  cost,  similar  advantages  can 
be  gained  by  another  method. 

The  second  requirement  is  economy.  We  can  ascertain  it  by 
computing  the  annual  expenses  of  several  of  the  best  sanitary  and 
otherwise  satisfactory  methods,  and  the  annual  receipts  that  may 
accrue  therefrom.  That  method  which  requires  the  least  net  annual 
expense  will  be  the  preferable  one  for  adoption. 


566     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


SI         rt> 

g     i 


Q 

fa 
1-1 

cr 

fo 
en; 


> 


P    S 
a    ° 

•^    CD 

P      P 
Ol      trl- 

a> 
tr 

fD 


02 

p-  3 


s.  "^ 


p 


S-    CO 


CR 


(T*  2-  <^ 

fD  2  p 

Hi  3  g 

CT>  P  p 

to  O- 

■  -1  5° 


Ej     CO 


> 


o 
o 

> 
s 

o 


O 


p 
a 


p 


O 


p 
p 


t^       t^       (^       fc^ 


M 

M 

p 

p 

P 

p 

Ci- 

0- 

o 


p 
p 
a- 


5^ 


2    H    ^ 
O    o    » 


■3    O 


£.  s 
c  2 


^  M 


SELECTING  THE  METHOD  OF  DISPOSAL  567 

The  annual  expenses  should  include: 

1.  Cost  of  collection  from  points  of  origin  and  delivery  to  the  point 
or  points  of  final  disposal. 

2.  Interest  on  the  cost  of  thp  works  and  equipment. 

3.  Depreciation  fund  to  replace  any  parts,  or  the  whole  of  the 
works  and  equipment,  when  they  require  renewal. 

4.  Cost  of  repairs,  to  maintain  a  continued  efficiency  of  the  works 
and  equipment. 

5.  Cost  of  receiving,  treating,  removing,  or  selling  the  pr(jduced 
materials. 

6.  Administration,  taxes,  legal  expenses,  and  sundries. 
The  annual  receipts  should  include: 

1.  Appropriation  of  funds  by  city  or  individuals. 

2.  Proceeds  of  sales  of  pickings. 

3.  Proceeds  of  sales  of  products. 

The  third  requirement,  that  of  expediencj^,  must  be  left  entirely 
to  the  judgment  of  the  local  governing  bodies,  after  they  have  care- 
fully weighed  the  questions  of  sanitation  and  cost,  which  should  be 
considered  mainly  in  the  light  of  tendencies  toward  possible  changes 
in  local  and  cost  elements. 


CHAPTER   XIV 
STABLE  REFUSE 

A.  MATERIALS 

Stable  refuse  or  manure,  as  here  understood,  consists  of  animal 
droppings,  straw,  and  the  general  cleanings  from  stables.  It  should  be 
distinguished  from  street  sweepings,  discussed  in  Chapter  XV, 
although  the  latter,  if  coming  from  well-paved  streets,  have  many  of 
the  characteristics  of  manure.  The  nature  of  stable  manure  depends 
on  the  kind  of  animals  producing  it  and  the  kind  of  bedding  used. 
The  bedding  is  generally  straw,  and  (rarely)  leaves  or  shavings.  In 
most  cities,  cows,  sheep,  goats,  and  such  animals  are  not  now  allowed 
to  be  housed  in  the  built-up  districts,  so  that  horse  manure,  mixed 
with  the  bedding  material,  practically  constitutes  the  stable  refuse. 

Stable  refuse,  both  as  to  its  quantity  and  its  nature,  is  a  material 
of  sufficient  importance  to  require  careful  attention  from  the  municipal 
cleansing  department.  It  is  unsightly,  and,  if  improperly  cared  for, 
creates  odors  by  the  production  chiefly  of  ammonia.  It  is  most  dan- 
gerous, however,  in  being  a  common  breeding  place  for  flies.  Under 
ordinary  city  conditions,  particularly  in  warm  climates,  it  has  been 
estimated  that  90%  of  the  flies  found  in  houses  comes  from  stables  or 
their  vicinity.  The  elimination  of  the  common  manure  pile  goes  far 
toward  the  elimination  of  flies  as  disease  carriers  and  also  as  a  great 
nuisance.  The  stable  manure  problem,  being  largely  a  fly  problem, 
therefore  requires  careful  consideration. 

1.  Quantity.— Few  records  are  available  as  to  the  quantity  of 
manure  produced  in  a  city.  The  weight  and  volume  produced  by  one 
horse  in  a  stable  depend  very  much  on  the  kind  and  quantity  of 
bedding,  the  drainage  provided,  and  the  care  with  which  the  manure 
is  gathered.  Table  168  gives  the  estimated  quantities  for  a  few 
cities  some  years  ago.  Mr.  L.  0.  Howard  states  that  "  the  average 
city  horse  produces  about  15  lb.  of  manure  daily.  The  larger  working 
horses  produce  from  20  to  30  lb.  per  day,  but,  as  they  are  out  of  the 
stable  much  of  the  time,  the  actual  quantity  of  stable  manure  would  be 
much  less." 

568 


STABLE  REFUSE 


569 


In  his  report  on  the  disposal  of  refuse  in  Milwaukee  (December, 
1907),  Hering  had  measurements  made  of  the  quantity  of  manure 
produced  in  a  week  by  three  horses,  and  found  it  to  be  21.5  lb.  per 
horse  per  day.  There  were  in  Milwaukee  at  that  time  about  12,500 
horses,  so  that  the  total  quantity  of  manure  produced  in  the  city  was 
estimated  to  be  133  tons  per  day.  It  was  estimated  that  in  Chicago 
in  1908,  there  were  83,330  horses.  In  1912  this  number  had  fallen  to 
72,670,  owing  to  the  increased  use  of  automobiles  and  motor  trucks. 
Based  on  22  lb.  of  manure  per  horse  per  day,  there  would  have  been 
produced  in  Chicago  in  1912  about  800  tons  of  manure  per  day.  It 
was  found  in  Milwaukee  that  manure,  reported  as  "  dry,"  weighed 
970  lb.  per  cubic  yard. 

TABLE  168. — Production  of  City  Manure 


City 

Year 

Populatioa. 

Estimated  Quantity  of 
Manure  per  Day 

Tons 

Pounds  per 
1000  population 

Milwaukee,  Wis .  . 
Columbus,  Ohio .  . 
Chicago,  111 

1907 
1910 
1912 

350,000 

182,000 

2,000,000 

133 

75 

800 

760 

825 
800 

It  has  been  estimated  in  Columbus,  Ohio,  that  one  horse  would 
produce  30  lb.  of  manure  per  day,  and  that  there  were  in  1910  about 
5000  horses  in  the  city.  The  total  quantity,  therefore,  was  about 
75  tons  per  day.  Some  manure  in  that  city  is  collected  by  the  Refuse 
Collection  Department.  During  1912,  this  Department  removed 
18,600  cu.  yd.,,  weighing  7440  tons,  which  is  equivalent  to  800  lb.  per 
cubic  yard.  The  total  quantity  collected  amounted  to  about  25  tons 
per  day,  indicating  that  the  Department  was  removing  only  about 
one-third  of  all  that  was  produced  in  the  city. 

In  a  recent  report  Mr.  Babson  says: 

"  The  rapidity  with  which  motor  trucks  are  replacing  horses  is  indicated 
by  statistics  recently  issued  by  the  Sanitary  Bureau  of  the  New  York  Health 
Department.  According  to  their  report,  the  number  of  stables  in  New  York 
was  7926  in  early  March,  1919,  compared  with  10,584  at  the  same  time  two 
years  ago.  The  total  number  of  horses  declined  from  108,036  to  75,740 
during  this  same  period.  The  loss  was  greatest  in  the  Boroughs  of  Queens, 
Brooklyn,  and  Manhattan.  The  number  in  Richmond  Borough  decreased 
only  19%,  and  in  The  Bronx  only  5%.  It  will  be  but  a  short  time  before  the 
motor  truck  in  great  part  replaces  the  horse  in  industrial  and  commercial 


570     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

work.     There  will  always  be  a  certain  field  for  horses,  but  it  is  becoming  more 
limited." 

With  a  rate  of  reduction  of  about  30%  in  horses  in  two  years  in 
New  York  City,  the  quantity  of  stable  refuse  will  be  greatly  dimin- 
ished in  the  future. 

2.  Character. — Manure  is  valuable  chiefly  as  a  fertilizer.  It  has 
also  some  calorific  value,  as  shown  by  analyses  in  the  test  of  the 
Milwaukee  refuse  incinerator.  (Table  169.)  The  average  of  these 
analyses  shows  that  it  contains  53.1%  of  moisture  and  10.1%  of  car- 
bon, as  compared  with  garbage  containing  70.6%  of  moisture  and  4.1% 
of  carbon.  In  spite  of  the  fact  that  manure  contains  less  moisture 
and  more  carbon  than  garbage,  it  is  found  equally  difficult  to  burn. 
This  is  probably  caused  by  the  manure  forming  a  heavy  mat  over 
the  fire,  through  which  air  penetrates  only  with  difficulty,  and  with 
correspondingly  poor  combustion. 

TABLE  169. — Analyses  op  Manure  at  Milwaukee,  Wis.,  in  1910 

(Ml  quantities  given  in  percentages  by  weight) 


Items 

Date  of  Sampling 

Averages 

May  18 

May  24 

May  24 

May  26 

May  27 

June  1 

Moisture 

Carbon 

Volatile  matter 
Pure  ash 

49.29 

9.27 

27.95 

13.49 

53.63 
11.52 

27.78 
7.07 

49.57 

10.18 

33.54 

6.71 

57.02 

10.83 

22.65 

9.50 

58.57 

7.34 

28.13 

5.96 

50.50 
11.34 
33.30 

4.86 

53.10 

10.08 

28.90 

7.90 

Manure  has  a  much  larger  volume  per  unit  weight  than  garbage, 
so  that,  with  an  equal  volume  of  fuel  crowded  on  the  fire,  there  is 
present  a  less  weight  of  manure  and  a  smaller  proportion  of  carbon. 

The  value  of  manure  as  a  fertilizer  depends  largely  on  its  organic 
constituents  available  for  plant  food.  These  are  largely  nitrogenous, 
and  there  are  also  potash  and  phosphoric  acid.  Typical  analyses  of 
stable  refuse  are  shown  in  Table  170. 

3.  Flies. — An  unfortunate  characteristic  of  manure  is  its  suit- 
ability as  a  breeding  place  for  house  and  stable  files. 

The  life  of  a  fiy  comprises  four  stages :  The  egg,  the  larva,  the  pupa, 
and  the  adult  fly.     The  larva  is  commonly  called  the  fly  maggot. 

Fly  eggs  are  deposited  in  almost  any  fermenting  organic  matter. 
Forbes  experimented  on  fly  breeding  in  a  large  number  of  different 
materials.     He  found  flies  to  have  a  decided  preference  for  manure, 


STABLE  REFUSE 


571 


kitchen  slop,  street  carrion,  and  rotten  chicken  feathers.  Large 
quantities  of  fly  eggs  are  deposited  in  garbage.  The  garbage  deliv- 
ered to  the  refuse  incinerator  at  Milwaukee  was  often  observed  to 
contain  many  fly  maggots.  Each  female  fly  may  lay  from  120  to 
150  eggs  in  each  deposit,  and,  in  one  season  may  deposit  as  many  as 
four  times,  thus  approaching  600  eggs  from  a  single  fly. 


TABLE  170. — Analyses  of  Fresh  Manure 

Percentages  by  weight 


Items 

Source  of  Data 

Harris  * 

Emyle 
Birt 

Henry  and 
Morrison  f 

Dr.Voelckert 

Moisture 

66.2% 

28.2 

1   5.6 

75.4% 
16.5 

8.1 

75.0% 

66.17% 
j      2.48 
1   25.76 
f      1.54 
I     4.05 

Organic  matter,  soluble .... 

"            "       insoluble .  . 

Inorganic  matter,  soluble .  . 

"             "        insoluble 

Totals 

100.0 

100.0 

100.00 

Nitrogen 

Phosphoric  acid 

Potash 

0.64% 

0.33 

0.67 

0.59% 

0.44 

0.48 

0.55% 

0.30 

0.40 

.45  to  .65%, 
.2    to  .5 
.4    to  .8 

*  "Talks  on  Manure,"  1910. 

t  "Foods  and  Feeding." 

t  Dr.  J.  A.  Voelcker  of  the  Royal  Agricultural  College,  England. 

The  duration  of  the  egg  stage  may  be  as  short  as  eight  hours. 
Newstead,  in  Liverpool,  found  that  the  eggs  hatched  in  periods  vary- 
ing from  eight  hours  to  three  or  four  days,  the  average  time  being 
about  twelve  hours. 

The  young  larva  or  maggot  is  slender,  tapering  from  a  blunt, 
round  posterior  end  to  a  pointed  head  end.  It  is  white,  about  2  mm. 
long,  and  extremely  active.  It  burrows  at  once  into  the  substance  on 
which  the  egg  was  laid.  During  the  growth  of  the  maggot,  the  skin  is 
cast  twice,  so  that  the  maggot  passes  through  three  distinct  stages 
of  growth.     In  the  third  and  last  stage,  the  iarva  is  white  or  yellowish. 

The  rate  of  development  of  the  maggot  varies  with  the  temperature, 
and  with  the  character  of  the  material  in  which  it  is  growing.  Howard 
found  in  Washington  that  the  larval  period  was  approximately  three 


572     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

days.  The  transformation  to  the  pupa  stage  may  take  place  any- 
where, but  it  has  been  very  generally  established  that  there  is  a  definite 
effort  on  the  part  of  the  maggot  to  descend  deeper  into  the  manure 
pile  or  other  substance  in  which  it  may  be  living.  Cory  and  Levy 
have  established  the  fact  that,  for  pupation,  many  maggots  burrow 
into  the  earth  beneath  stalls  and  stable  floors.  This  habit  has  sug- 
gested an  advantageous  means  of  catching  the  maggot.  A  pan  filled 
with  a  poisonous  material,  or  even  with  water,  is  placed  below  the 
manure  box,  so  that,  when  the  maggot  crawls  out  of  the  bottom  of 
the  pile  it  drops  into  the  poisonous  liquid  or  water  below  and  is 
destroyed. 

When  the  maggot  becomes  a  pupa  it  is  about  6  mm.  in  length. 
Its  color,  at  first,  is  yellowish,  but  rapidly  changes  to  red  and  finally  to 
a  dark  chestnut.  The  adult  fly  develops  within  the  pupa.  With  a 
favorable  temperature,  the  adult  fly  may  emerge  between  the  third 
and  fourth  day  (usually  four  or  five  days)  after  pupation.  The  pupse 
have  no  power  of  locomotion,  but  remain  where  the  maggots  stopped, 
unless  moved  by  some  outside  force.  The  pupse  will  generally  be 
found  around  the  outside  of  the  manure  pile,  forming  a  ring,  or  in  the 
earth  just  below.  The  migration  toward  the  outside  of  the  pile  may  be 
a  provision  to  let  the  fly  emerge  more  easily. 

The  adult  fly  issues  from  the  pupa  about  ten  days  after  the  egg  is 
laid.     Dr.  Stewart  observed  a  minimum  rate  of  growth,  as  follows: 

Eggs 8  hours 

First  stage  of  larval  period 20  hours 

Second  stage  of  larval  period 24  hours 

Third  stage  of  larval  period 3  days 

Pupal  stage 3  days 

Total  8  days  4  hours 

Newstead  has  observed  a  minimum  period  of  from  ten  to  fourteen 
days,  and  a  maximum  period  of  from  four  to  five  weeks. 

Computations  have  been  made  of  the  possible  number  of  flies 
which  can  develop  during  a  season  from  a  single  female.  The  num- 
ber runs  into  the  billions.  One  ton  of  warm  moist  manure  has  been 
estimated  to  contain  900,000  maggots.  The  destruction  of  a  single 
fly  in  the  beginning  of  the  fly  season,  therefore,  means  a  large  reduc- 
tion in  the  number  in  the  latter  part  of  the  season. 

Observations  indicate  that  flies  travel  for  considerable  distances; 
during  calm  weather,  as  far  as  1000  yd.  in  open  districts;  in  windy 
weather  very  much  farther.  The  range  is  probably  somewhat  less 
in  the  built-up  parts  of  cities  and  towns. 


STABLE  REFUSE  573 

The  foregoing  notes  have  been  taken  largely  from  "The  House 
Fly,"  by  L.  0.  Howard,  and  "The  Reduction  of  Domestic  Flies,"  by 
Edward  H.  Ross. 

As  a  result  of  many  investigations,  it  has  been  found  that  flies 
transmit  typhoid  fever,  dysentery,  and  other  intestinal  diseases. 
This  danger  is  well  summed  up  in  the  headline  of  a  fly  poster  pre- 
pared by  the  State  Board  of  Health  of  Florida,  which  reads  : 

"  From  Filth  and  Flies  to  Food  and  Fever." 

4.  Stable  Treatment. — The  stable  treatment  of  manure  in  a  city 
is  important.  It  should  be  determined  with  full  consideration  of  the 
habits  of  the  fly,  and  all  reasonable  measures  should  be  taken  to  pre- 
vent the  fly  from  breeding.  The  manure  should  be  stored  in  recep- 
tacles as  nearly  fly-tight  as  possible,  although  this  precaution  alone 
will  have  little  effect  on  the  number  of  flies  produced.  Its  chief 
advantage  lies  in  the  curtailment  of  the  food  supply  and  breeding 
area.  The  size  of  the  receptacle  depends  on  the  frequency  of  removal. 
It  is  important  to  make  such  receptacles  of  a  non-absorbing  material, 
as  this  prevents  the  development  of  ammonia  odors  from  liquid  com- 
pounds which  might  be  absorbed  by  the  material.  The  retention 
of  the  liquids  in  the  manure  adds  considerably  to  its  fertilizing  value. 

The  migratory  habits  of  house-fly  larvae  should  always  be  well 
considered.  Levy  and  Tuck  have  proposed  and  used  with  good 
results  a  so-called  maggot  trap.  It  is  based  on  the  observed  fact 
that  the  maggots  developing  in  manure  issue  from  it  as  adult  larvae 
and  pupae,  through  any  smaU  holes  or  crevices  in  the  bottom  of  the 
receptacle  holding  it,  and  immediately  seek  the  nearest  point  at 
which  they  can  enter  the  earth  and  burrow  into  the  soil.  Levy  and 
Tuck  believe  that  the  soil  is  the  normal  place  for  pupation.  In  order 
to  prevent  this  further  development  of  the  fly,  they  arranged  a  floor 
for  the  receptacle  containing  the  manure,  consisting  of  stout  wire 
screening  of  ^-in.  mesh,  and  placed  below  it  a  container  with  several 
inches  of  water.  Into  this  the  maggots  dropped  and  were  promptly 
destroyed  by  drowning  or  poisoning.  Cory  in  1918  *  fully  described 
this  method  of  controlling  the  house-fly  nuisance  by  the  maggot  trap. 

Experiments  with  a  similar  apparatus  were  made  by  Hutchison 
for  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture.  Table  171  shows 
the  result  of  an  experiment  on  the  migratory  habits  of  fly  maggots. 
In  this  experiment  99%  of  the  maggots  were  destroyed  before  they 
reached  the  pupal  stage. 

This  migratory  habit  of  the  maggot  has  an  important  bearing 
on  some  of  the  details  of  the  construction  of  horse  stables.     Cory 

*  Bulletin  SIS  of  the  Maryland  State  College  of  Agriculture. 


574     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

and  Levy  concluded  that  the  substitution  of  cement  floors  for  earth 
or  wooden  floors  would  cause  a  material  reduction  in  the  development 
of  flies.  If  the  floor  of  the  stable  is  not  tight  and  sound,  manure  con- 
taining fly  eggs  may  get  through  it  to  the  ground  below.  Urine  will 
also  get  through,  and  all  the  conditions  favorable  to  the  development 
of  the  larvae  may  be  established,  namely,  food,  warmth,  and  moisture. 
If  the  openings  in  the  stable  floor  are  large,  flies  themselves  will  enter 
the  space  between  the  earth  and  the  floor,  and  deposit  their  eggs  on  a 
suitable  material. 


TABLE  171. — Migratory  Habit  of  House-fly  Larv^ 

From  Bulletin  of  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Professional  Paper  No.  14, 
"The  Migratory  Habit  of  Housefly  Larvse  as  Indicating  a  Favorable  Remedial  Measure. 
An  Account  of  Progress,"  by  Robert  H.  Hutchison,  Scientific  Assistant. 


Larva; 

Flies 

Larvae 

Flies 

Date,  1913 

collected 

caught 

Date,  1913 

collected 

caught 

from  pans 

in  traps 

from  pans 

in  traps 

Brt.  fwd. 

6710 

11 

Nov.  14 

162 

Nov.  26 

2 

'      15 

656 

"     27 

3 

'      16 

1950 

"     28 

2 

'      17 

2650 

"     29 

2 

'     18 

1240 

Dec.     1 

2 

'      19 

40 

2 

8 

'     20 

* 

7 

"       3 

5 

'     21 

12 

0 

"       4 

6 

'     22 

0 

0 

"       5 

15 

'     23 

0 

0 

"       6 

10 

'      24 

0 

0 

"       7 

3 

'         OK 

0 
6710 

4 
11 

Carried  fwd. 

Totals .  .  . 

6710 

69 

*  Collected  on  the  following  day 

5.  Germicides  and  Traps. — Many  experiments  have  been  made  to 
find  a  satisfactory  germicide  to  kill  fly  eggs  and  maggots  in  manure. 
Chloride  of  lime,  carbolic  acid,  kerosene,  iron  sulphate,  and  carbon  bi- 
sulphide are  all  more  or  less  expensive,  when  used  in  sufficient  quan- 
tities to  be  effective  in  destroying  the  maggots.  It  has  been  found 
that  1  lb.  of  chloride  of  lime,  when  applied  to  6  lb.  of  horse  manure, 
will  kill  90%  of  the  maggots  in  less  than  twenty-four  hours.  On  this 
basis,  from  3  to  5  lb.  of  lime  would  be  required  per  horse  per  day, 
and,  with  lime  at  three  cents  per  pound,  this  method  of  treatment 
would  be  expensive  for  a  large  stable.     Kerosene  is  cheaper,  though  it 


STABLE  REFUSE  575 

is  a  dangerous  fire  hazard  and  impairs  the  fertilizing  value  of  the 
manure. 

In  Montclair,  N.  J.,  during  1915,  a  vigorous  effort  was  made  by- 
Mr.  Chester  H.  Wells,  Health  Officer,  to  prevent  fly  breeding  in 
stable  manure,  two  inspectors  being  appointed  for  this  purpose.  It 
was  found  impracticable  to  make  satisfactory  arrangements  for  the 
frequent  removal  of  the  manure  A  long  series  of  experiments  was 
made  with  different  kinds  of  maggot  killers,  in  order  to  find  the  cheap- 
est and  yet  the  most  effective  material.  It  was  found  that  several 
coal-tar  preparations  would  do  the  work,  if  the  manure  was  wet 
thoroughly  with  a  solution  of  the  proper  strength,  but  that  the  stable 
help  could  not  be  relied  on  to  give  the  matter  sufficient  attention. 
It  was  finally  decided  that  sodium  arsenate  was  both  the  most  effect- 
ive and  the  cheapest  material  that  could  be  used.  If  the  manure  is 
sprinkled  each  day  with  a  solution  consisting  of  a  tablespoonful  of 
sodium  arsenate  in  2  gal.  of  water,  no  fly  breeding  should  result.  It 
was  found  that  the  manurial  value  was  not  decreased. 

Howard  quotes  some  unpublished  experiments  by  Forbes,  of 
Illinois,  which  show  that  "  the  breeding  of  the  house-fly  in  manure 
can  be  controlled  by  the  application  of  a  solution  of  iron  sulphate — 
2  lb.  in  a  gallon  of  water  for  each  horse  per  day — and  by  the  use  of  2^ 
lb.  of  dry  sulphate  per  horse  per  day." 

Professor  C.  F.  Hodge,  of  Clark  University,  Worcester,  Mass.,  has 
conducted  some  interesting  experiments  on  the  stable  treatment  of 
manure.  He  is  convinced  that  it  is  useless  to  undertake  to  remove 
the  breeding  places  of  flies.  He  points  out  the  difficulty  of  keeping 
them  away  from  the  manure  when  the  trap  door  built  on  the  manure 
boxes  must  be  opened  several  times  daily.  He,  therefore,  devised  a 
fly  trap,  which  can  be  attached  to  the  manure  box.  He  contends 
that  it  is  easier  and  more  effective  to  trap  and  kill  adult  flies  and  thus 
eventually  to  exterminate  them,  than  to  attempt  to  remove  the 
breeding  places,  although  the  latter  is  naturally  of  great  assistance. 

From  a  review  of  the  evidence,  particularly  in  southern  cities, 
where  the  fly  problem  is  of  greatest  importance,  it  is  evident  that  more 
effective  methods  for  the  reduction  of  flies  should  be  used.  Well- 
built,  well-drained,  fly-proof  receptacles  for  the  manure  should  be 
used.  The  stable  floors  should  be  made  tight,  so  that  flies  will  not 
develop  in  the  ground  beneath.  Fly  and  maggot  traps  should  be 
set  at  proper  points  about  the  stables,  and  the  manure  should  be 
removed  as  promptly  and  regularly  as  possible. 

The  data  thus  far  presented  apply  particularly  to  house  and  stable 
flies.  There  are  other  kinds  which  develop  in  fermenting  organic 
matter,  and  are  found  in  stables  and  garbage  disposal  plants.     The 


576     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

treatment,  as  far  as  we  know,  should  be  practically  the  same  as  that 
just  mentioned. 

Where  manure  cannot  be  collected  regularly,  and  must  be  stored 
for  periods  of  considerable  length,  it  is  best  to  use  either  fly-tight 
receptacles  or  the  maggot  trap,  to  prevent  fly  breeding. 

B.  COLLECTION 

1.  Methods.^ — There  are  few  instances  of  a  municipal  collection 
of  manure,  as  it  is  generally  removed  directly  by  the  stable  owners  or 
for  them  by  farmers.  In  large  cities,  supplementary  transfer  of  the 
manure  to  long  distances  becomes  necessary.  Frequently,  the  citj'^ 
cleansing  department  arranges  to  have  freight  cars  stationed  at  one  or 
more  sidings  throughout  the  city.  The  stable  users  deliver  the  ma- 
nure to  the  freight  car  and  the  farmer  takes  it  from  a  siding  in  the  out- 
lying farming  or  truck-garden  districts.  In  smaller  towns,  and  to  a 
considerable  extent  in  larger  cities,  the  farmer  removes  it  directly  from 
the  stables.  Such  a  method  of  collection  is  not  wholly  satisfactory, 
because  the  farmer  cannot  find  time  for  it  during  the  busy  seeding  and 
harvesting  seasons.  It  is  also  unsatisfactory  to  rely  on  the  stable  users 
for  prompt  and  regular  collection. 

In  Milwaukee,  the  cleansing  department  has  constituted  itself 
as  a  sort  of  clearing  house,  where  farmers  desiring  manure  can  secure 
the  names  and  addresses  of  stable  users  desiring  to  have  it  removed. 
This  plan  has  worked  quite  satisfactorily.  Whenever  it  was  possible, 
the  department  secured  annual  contracts,  between  the  farmer  and 
the  stable  owner,  to  insure  the  removal  of  manure  throughout  the 
year.  Livery  stables  generally,  and  quite  properly,  remove  manure 
every  day  or  two  during  the  fly-breeding  season. 

In  Buffalo,  N.  Y.,  all  manure  is  collected  from  city  barns  and 
private  stables  by  farmers,  who  are  under  contract  with  the  City  and, 
in  1914,  paid  $2.50  per  horse  per  year  to  the  City,  and  the  same  to  the 
householders.     The  manure  is  collected  daily  from  the  City  barns. 

In  Columbus,  Ohio,  the  removal  and  disposal  is  governed  by  the 
following  ordinance: 

"Be  it  ordained  by  the  Council  of  the  City  of  Columbus,  State  of  Ohio: 
"  Section  1. — That  it  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  persons  in  possession  of  or 
controlling  the  use  of  any  barn,  stable,  pen,  shed,  stall,  or  similar  place  within 
the  City  of  Columbus,  Ohio,  wherein  animals  are  kept  for  any  purpose,  to 
keep  such  barn,  stables,  and  other  places  above  mentioned  or  allow  the  same 
to  become  filthy,  noisome,  or  unsanitary. 

"  Section  2. — That  every  person  owning,  operating,  or  controlling  the  use 
of  any  building  or  part  of  a  building  or  any  place  within  the  city,  who  has  one 


STABLE  REFUSE  577 

or  more  horses,  mules,  cows,  or  other  like  animals  kept  in  the  same,  shall 
maintain  in  connection  therewith  a  bin  or  pit  in  which  the  manure  from  said 
animals  shall  be  placed,  pending  removal;  said  bin  or  pit  to  be  provided  with 
water-tight  cover  of  sufficient  strength  and  close  fitting  to  prevent  the  ingress 
and  egress  of  flies;  said  bin  or  pit  shall  be  located  within  lot  lines  at  a  point 
most  removed  from  any  dwelling,  or  other  structure,  owned  or  occupied  by 
others  than  the  owner  of  the  premises  above  mentioned,  and  shall  likewise  be 
placed  at  a  point  most  remote,  on  the  premises,  from  any  street  or  avenue. 

"  Section  3. — It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  person  to  hold  such  manure  on 
said  premises  for  a  period  longer  than  fourteen  days;  provided,  however,  that 
any  of  said  persons  may  use  said  manure  on  their  premises  for  the  purpose  of 
enriching  their  own  ground,  or  for  any  other  use  to  which  manure  can  properly 
be  put,  provided  said  manure  be  scattered  and  spread  on  the  ground,  so  that 
the  same  may  not  become  offensive  or  unsanitary;  and,  provided  further,  that 
any  person,  firm,  or  corporation  may  remove  manure  from  bins,  pits,  or  other 
places  where  deposited  as  required  by  this  ordinance,  for  any  purpose,  where 
such  manure  has  not  become  offensive  or  unsanitary. 

"  Section  4. — ^That  any  person,  firm,  or  corporation  owning  any  stock,  as 
enumerated  in  Section  2  of  this  ordinance,  may,  by  paying  annually  to  the 
City  of  Columbus  the  sum  of  $3.00  for  one  head  of  stock  owned  by  them,  or 
$5.00  for  two  head  and  $1.00  for  each  and  every  head  of  stock  over  and 
above  two  head  owned  by  them,  be  relieved  from  removing  said  manure  from 
the  bin  or  pit  in  which  the  same  is  required  to  be  deposited,  said  City,  on  pay- 
ment of  such  charge,  undertaking  to  do  the  work  of  removing  the  same. 

"  Section  5. — That  any  person,  firm,  or  corporation  owning  any  stock,  as 
enumerated  in  Section  2  of  this  ordinance,  shall,  by  paying  to  the  Treasurer 
of  the  City  of  Columbus  the  sum  or  sums  required  in  Section  4  of  this  ordi- 
nance, receive  a  receipt  card,  signed  by  the  Auditor  of  said  City,  which  card 
shall  be  posted  in  a  conspicuous  place,  on  or  within  any  of  said  barns,  stables, 
sheds,  stalls  or  similar  places  wherein  animals  are  kept,  as  provided  for  in 
Section  1,  and  the  Auditor  of  said  City  shall  be  required  to  notify  the  Director 
of  Public  Service  that  such  person,  firm,  or  corporation  has  deposited  the 
required  sum,  provided,  however,  that  should  any  person,  firm,  or  corpora- 
tion mentioned  in  the  foregoing  sections  of  this  ordinance  fail  to  procure  such 
receipt  card,  and  fail  after  a  period  of  fourteen  days  to  remove  such  manure,  as 
required  in  Section  3  of  this  ordinance,  may,  by  paying  to  the  City  of  Columbus 
the  sum  of  $2.00  per  load  or  part  thereof,  for  each  and  every  load  or  part 
thereof,  have  the  same  removed  by  the  said'  City.  The  Director  of  Public 
Service  shall  make  rules  and  regulations  for  the  collection,  removal,  and  dis- 
position of  manure. 

"  Section  6. — That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  sanitary  inspectors  to  inspect 
such  bins  or  pits  and  require  the  same  to  be  emptied  as  required  by  the  terms 
of  this  ordinance.  All  wagons  used  for  the  removal  of  said  manure  shall  be 
so  constructed  as  to  prevent  the  same  from  being  dropped  or  spilled  along 
the  streets  or  public  places  within  the  city. 

"  Section  7. — Any  person  or  persons  violating  the  provisions  of  this  ordi- 
nance, shall,  on  conviction  thereof,  be  fined  not  less  than  $5.00  or  more  than 
$50.00  for  the  first  offense,  and  for  each  subsequent  offense  not  less  than  $50.00 


578      COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

or  more  than  $200.00.  This  ordinance  is  hereby  declared  to  be  an  emergency- 
measure. 

"  Section  8. — That  all  ordinances  and  parts  of  ordinances  in  conflict  with 
this  ordinance  be  and  the  same  are  hereby  repealed. 

"  Section  9. — That  this  ordinance  shall  take  effect  and  be  in  force  from  and 
after  the  earliest  period  allowed  by  law. 

"  Passed  February  12,  1912." 

The  practical  effect  of  this  ordinance  has  been  to  remove  many  old 
nuisances. 

2.  Equipment. — Where  manure  is  collected  by  stable  users  or 
farmers,  special  equipment  for  the  service  is  not  possible.  Wagons 
used  for  regular  stable  or  farm  work  will  be  used  only  once  or  twice  a 
week  for  the  removal  of  manure.  The  same  practice  would  apply  to 
the  use  of  city  teams  which  work  in  other  parts  of  the  service  most  of 
the  time. 

If  the  disposal  is  on  the  separate  plan,  stable  manure  should  not  be 
removed  with  any  rubbish  or  garbage,  but  should  await  collection  in 
separate  masonry  pits  which  are  drained  and  ventilated.  Where  the 
quantities  are  large,  they  should  be  stored  in  large  vaults  and  col- 
lected specially. 

Large  wagons,  holding  from  5  to  8  cu.  yd.,  and  used  continuously 
by  the  city,  are  desirable.  They  should  be  covered,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent unsightliness  when  passing  through  the  streets. 

C.  FINAL  DISPOSAL 

There  are  three  methods  for  the  final  disposal  of  stable  refuse.  One, 
spreading  it  on  the  soil  and  used  as  fertilizer;  another,  dumping  it 
on  waste  land  for  land-filling;  and  a  third,  destroying  it  by  incinera- 
tion. 

1.  Fertilizer. — The  best  method  of  disposing  of  manure  is  to  use 
it  as  a  fertilizer;  and  the  greater  bulk  of  it,  in  the  cities  of  Europe 
and  the  United  States,  is  utilized  in  this  way.  A  fertilizer,  broadly 
defined,  is  anything  that  will  increase  the  productive  yield  of  the  soil 
to  which  it  is  added.  The  valuable  constituents  of  fertilizers  are 
nitrogen,  phosphoric  acid,  and  potash.  As  manure  contains  these 
elements,  it  adds  to  the  productivity  of  land,  and  is  classed  as  a  nat- 
ural fertilizer.  It  is  possible  to  convert  stable  manure  into  a  better 
fertilizer,  for  the  purpose  of  better  disposition.  Even  if  this  is  done 
without  profit,  it  may  be  in  some  cities  the  least  expensive  method 
of  final  disposal. 

An  analysis  of  fresh  manure,  given  in  Table  170  shows  that  it  con- 
tains 0.64%  of  ammonia,  0.33%  of  phosphoric  acid,  and  0.67%  of 


STABLE  REFUSE 


579 


potash.  In  order  that  the  fertilizing  elements  may  be  made  avail- 
able for  plant  food,  they  must  be  in  soluble  form.  Of  the  total  organic 
matter  in  fresh  manure,  a  little  more  than  7%  is  soluble,  and,  of  the 
inorganic  matter,  about  4^%  is  soluble.  Table  172,  taken  from  page 
55  of  "  Talks  on  Manure,"  by  Harris,  shows  an  analysis  of  the 
manure  before  and  after  it  had  fermented.  The  fermentation 
adds  to  its  value  as  a  fertilizer,  by  changing  some  of  the  insoluble 
compounds  into  soluble  form.  According  to  the  analysis  given,  the 
percentage  of  soluble  organic  matter  increased  during  three  months 
from  7.33%  to  12.79%,  and  the  soluble  inorganic  matter  from 
4.55%  to  9.84%,  or  more  than  double. 

TABLE  172.— Effect  of  Storage  and  Exposure 
ON  THE  Composition  of  Manure,  Calculated  on  a  Dry  Basis 


Item 

Date  of  Sampling 

Fresh 

when  put 

up, 

After  fermentation 

November 
3d 

February 
14th 

April 
30th 

August 
23d 

November 
15th 

Soluble  matter: 

Organic 

Inorganic 

Insoluble  matter: 

Organic 

Inorganic 

Totals 

7.33 
4.55 

76.15 
11.97 

12.79 
9.84 

61.12 
16.25 

12. 54 

8.39 

56.49 

22.58 

12.04 

8.03 

49.77 
30.16 

10.65 

7.27 

42.35 
39.73 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

100.00 

Manure  should  be  properly  fermented,  if  the  best  results  are  to  be 
secured.  The  fermenting  pile  should  be  placed  on  an  impervious  bot- 
tom, sloping  down  toward  the  center.  This  prevents  the  soluble 
compounds  from  being  washed  away  during  rain  storms;  yet,  the 
fermenting  manure  should  not  be  allowed  to  become  too  dry.  As  the 
process  of  fermentation  is  the  oxidizing  or  burning  up  of  the  dry 
organic  contents,  it  should  not  proceed  too  actively  or  too  slowly, 
and  there  should  be  sufficient  moisture  to  absorb  the  portions  of  the 
volatile  organic  matters  which  are  driven  off  by  the  fermentation. 
Experiments  have  shown  that  fermenting  manure  exposed  to  the 
weather  does  not  become  too  wet,  and  that  rain  will  not  harm  it. 


580     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

In  the  process  of  fermentation,  the  organic  nitrogen  is  first  changed 
into  ammonia.  If  the  ammonia  escapes  from  tlie  pile,  there  is  a  clear 
loss  in  fertilizing  value.  Therefore,  the  pile  should  be  carefully 
thatched  or  covered  with  canvas,  and  the  heap  should  not  be  turned 
over  more  frequently  than  necessary.  It  has  been  observed  that  the 
fermentation  of  manure  destroys  the  seeds  of  weeds  contained  in 
the  original  bedding.  The  effect  of  ammonia  on  fly  maggots  does  not 
seem  to  have  been  determined.  In  the  fermenting  mass  the  using  up 
of  the  oxygen  and  the  formation  of  various  volatile  compounds  may 
create  an  environment  not  suitable  for  the  rapid  development  of 
flies.  If  this  should  be  the  case,  it  would  be  an  added  and  important 
reason  for  allowing  fermentation. 

The  question  of  how  the  fermentation  of  manure  and  its  subse- 
quent distribution  to  the  farmers  should  be  effected  is  rather  difficult 
to  answer  at  this  time.  It  would  seem,  however,  as  though  city  offi- 
cials, possibly  in  connection  with  poor  farms  or  county  institutions, 
could  practice  composting  as  a  source  of  revenue.  Whether  the 
results  show  a  gain  or  a  deficit,  the  benefit  in  securing  prompt  and 
effective  service  during  the  summer  would  be  sufficient  warrant  for 
the  work.  Some  manure  might  probably  be  handled  in  this  way  by 
the  Park  Departments. 

2.  Land-fill. — Making  land  by  dumping  stable  refuse,  as  has  been 
practiced  in  some  western  cities,  is  objectionable  chiefly  as  it  is  favor- 
able to  fly  breeding,  although  it  may  be  less  costly  than  better  methods. 
Unless  it  receives  a  good  earth  cover — and,  when  the  quantity  thus 
disposed  of  is  large,  this  has  often  been  insufficient — offensive  odors 
will  arise.  As  the  manure  gradually  decomposes,  the  filling  settles, 
which  makes  the  land  worthless  for  improvements  until  after  a  long 
term  of  years. 

Although  this  method  of  disposal  may  be  justified  in  some  cases 
for  stringent  financial  reasons,  it  should  be  considered  as  but  tem- 
porary, and  a  better  one  substituted  as  soon  as  possible. 

3.  Incineration. — Manure  has  been  disposed  of  in  a  few  instances 
by  burning  it  in  large  quantities,  but  this  cannot  generally  be  regarded 
as  a  satisfactory  solution.  In  Milwaukee,  the  Health  Department 
has  had  so  much  difficulty  in  forcing  its  prompt  removal  from  stables, 
because  of  the  lack  of  a  proper  point  of  delivery  and  discharge,  that 
it  was  insisted  that  provision  should  be  made  at  the  incinerator  for 
burning  it.  This  was  done,  but,  as  it  was  not  a  satisfactory  fuel,  it 
became  a  burden  on  the  incinerator.  Its  large  bulk,  its  mixture 
with  much  mineral  street  dirt,  and  the  difficulty  of  forcing  air 
through  it,  on  account  of  its  matting,  all  tended  to  reduce  the  total 
capacity  of  the  plant. 


STABLE  REFUSE  581 

From  the  point  of  view  of  economy,  burning  manure  at  Milwaukee 
is  not  advantageous.  However,  for  sanitary  reasons,  it  has  some 
merits,  as  it  provides  an  effective,  easy,  and  always  ready  means  of 
disposal.  It  also  makes  it  easier  for  the  sanitary  inspectors  to  insist 
on  prompt  and  frequent  removals.  It  completely  destroys  the 
manure,  with  the  contained  maggots,  preventing  the  production  of 
flies,  which  might  proceed  if  it  were  taken  to  a  farm  and  not  promptly 
turned  into  the  soil.  In  any  case,  capacity  in  the  local  incinerator 
for  at  least  a  portion  of  it  is  advisable. 

In  Kansas  City  some  manure  has  been  burned  recently  in  shallow 
ridges  on  the  ground  in  the  open.  The  ashes  are  recovered  and  sold 
for  their  content  of  potash. 

D.  RESULTS  IN  PRACTICE 

Experience  with  the  removal  of  manure  in  American  cities  does 
not  indicate  any  special  line  of  progress,  but  rather  a  need  for  better 
development.  Dr.  P.  M.  Hall,  when  Health  Commissioner  of  Minne- 
apoHs,  published  some  notes  on  the  practice  in  various  cities,  from 
which  the  following  items  are  taken: 

1.  Minneapolis. — The  manure  is  disposed  of  during  the  winter  by  the 
voluntary  collection  of  market  gardeners  and  farmers,  but,  as  soon  as  spring 
work  opens  up,  the  collection  in  the  city  is  sadly  neglected.  Several  years 
ago  an  ordinance  was  passed,  permitting  private  collectors  between  April  1st 
and  October  1st  each  year  to  collect  it  and  charge  the  horse  owner  a  fee  of  50 
cents  per  month  per  animal.  All  the  known  private  haulers  in  the  city, 
together  with  the  regular  scavenger  companies,  were  notified  and  furnished 
with  copies  of  the  ordinance,  and  for  the  first  year  the  collecting  was  fairly 
well  done. 

The  one  great  difficulty  to  contend  with  was  that  the  collectors  found  no 
sale  for  it,  as  the  farmers  and  market  gardeners  did  not  want  it  at  that  time  of 
the  year,  and  objection  was  made  to  its  being  stored  anj^where.  The  ordi- 
nance had  the  usual  requirements  of  keeping  manure  in  a  water-tight  box; 
that  it  should  be  collected  at  least  once  a  week  between  April  1st  and  October 
1st ;  that  those  hauling  it  should  be  careful  that  there  should  be  no  spilling  on 
the  street,  etc.  The  ordinance  is  still  in  existence,  and  has  not  been  super- 
seded by  a  new  one.     It  is  indifferently  enforced. 

2.  Washington. — The  law  in  force  in  the  District  of  Columbia  requires 
every  person  owning  or  occupying  a  building,  within  the  more  densely  pop- 
ulated parts  of  the  District,  where  one  or  more  horses,  mules,  or  cows  are  kept, 
to  maintain  in  connection  therewith  a  bin  or  pit  for  the  reception  of  manure, 
pending  its  removal  from  the  premises.  These  bins  or  pits  must  be  fly-tight 
and  water-tight.  The  manure  must  be  removed  from  the  premises  twice  a 
week  between  June  1st  and  October  31st,  and  at  least  once  a  week  between 
November  1st  and  May  31st.     The  manure,  when  transported  over  the  high- 


582     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

ways  of  the  densely  populated  parts  of  the  District,  must  be  in  tight  vehicles 
which,  if  not  enclosed,  must  be  covered  so  as  to  prevent  it  from  dropping  on 
the  streets.  The  method  of  collecting  from  these  bins  or  pits  is  not  uniform, 
it  being  the  duty  of  the  owner  of  the  stable  to  arrange  for  its  removal. 
There  are  in  the  District  six  or  more  companies  that  deal  in  manure.  Wagons 
are  maintained  by  them,  in  some  instances  exclusively  for  its  collection;  in 
others,  they  are  used  also  in  similar  branches  of  their  business.  These  wagons 
collect  from  the  bins  or  pits,  and  convey  the  manure  either  to  the  raUroad 
stations  for  shipment  or  directly  to  the  property  of  the  person  purchasing  it. 
In  many  instances  these  companies  pay  to  those  in  charge  of  the  stables  a 
small  sum  for  the  privilege  of  obtaining  the  manure.  Some  of  the  farmers 
residing  within  the  immediate  vicinity  of  Washington  collect  it  from  the  stables 
of  the  city  during  certain  months  of  the  year.  This  service,  however,  has 
proved  unsatisfactory  in  that  the  farmers  do  not  call  for  it  during  the  growing 
season,  because  of  the  demand  for  their  teams  in  other  work  on  the  farm.  The 
manure  from  the  stables  under  the  control  of.  the  municipality  is  used  on  the 
grounds  of  the  municipal  workhouse  and  almshouse  and  on  some  of  the  city's 
parks. 

3.  Toronto. — The  City  has  contracts  with  four  different  companies  for  the 
removal  of  all  manure,  which  has  to  be  taken  from  all  premises  at  least  once 
every  week.  The  Department  of  Health  requires  manure  to  be  kept  in  water- 
tight, fly-proof  bins  or  receptacles.  If  these  bins  extend  below  the  level  of 
the  ground,  they  are  required  to  be  constructed  of  concrete,  and  connected 
by  a  trap  to  the  sewer  on  the  street. 

The  companies  make  a  nominal  charge  to  the  different  stables,  etc.,  the 
Department  of  Health  insisting  on  regular  removal.  There  is,  therefore,  no 
cost  to  the  Department  in  connection  with  the  removal  of  this  portion  of  the 
city's  waste. 

4.  Jersey  City. — All  manure  is  carted  away  by  private  contractors  at 
no  cost  to  the  City,  its  storage  not  being  allowed  in  the  city.  Most  of  it  is 
sold  to  farmers  for  fertilizing  purposes. 

5.  Richmond. — According  to  statements  of  the  Health  Commissioner,  Dr. 
E.  C.  Levy,  more  trouble  is  encountered  in  Richmond,  in  connection  with  the 
removal  of  manure  from  the  small  private  stables  than  from  the  large  livery 
stables.  The  latter  are  able  to  make  contracts  for  its  removal  throughout 
the  year,  but  the  small  stable  owner  is  not  able  to  do  so,  and  finds  the  greatest 
difficulty  in  having  it  taken  away  during  the  summer — the  very  time  when  its 
removal  is  most  important. 

Methods  of  dealing  with  this  problem  have  been  considered.  In  the 
opinion  of  Dr.  Levy,  the  City  itself  should  be  prepared  to  remove  manure  from 
stables  when  the  owner  or  occupant  fails  to  do  so  in  accordance  with  the  law. 
Every  horse  owner,  of  course,  should  be  allowed  to  sell  it  if  he  can,  and  in 
doing  so  comply  with  the  law;  otherwise,  it  should  be  regarded  as  a  nuisance, 
and  the  City,  it  would  seem,  would  then  have  a  perfect  right  to  remove  it 
without  compensating  the  owner,  and,  indeed,  going  further  and  charging 
the  owner  for  the  service,  if  this  is  found  necessary. 

6.  Rochester. — The  City  does  not  collect  or  dispose  of  manure.  It  is  con- 
sidered a  by-product  which  the  stable  keepers  sell  to  the  local  farmers.     Dr. 


STABLE  REFUSE  583 

Joseph  Roby  writes:  "  I  cannot  see  that  it  has  any  particular  bearing  on  the 
public  health,  except  so  far  as  the  manure  pits  are  breeders  of  flies." 

7.  Denver. — The  present  method  of  manure  disposal  in  Denver  consists  of 
transferring  it  to  the  city  dumps,  where  it  is  held  during  the  sununer  and  in 
the  spring  sold  to  market  gardeners.  The  chief  sanitary  inspector  of  the 
department  writes  that  the  service  lacks  much  of  being  satisfactory,  and  that 
the  methods  will  probably  be  improved  in  the  near  future. 

0.  Columbus. — Columbus  collects  manure  from  any  stable  within  the 
city  limits  on  payment  of  a  moderate  fee.  It  is  disposed  of  by  sale  to  farmers 
or  other  parties  desiring  to  use  it  as  fertilizer.  All  stable  owners  in  the  city 
are  required  to  keep  it  in  tight  boxes  and  have  it  removed  at  regular  intervals, 
whether  by  the  City  or  private  individuals.  The  charge  made  to  the  stable 
owner  is  nominal,  and  does  not  meet  the  entire  cost  of  collection,  which  is 
about  $12,000  per  year.  "  This  system  has  not  been  in  effect  any  great 
length  of  time,"  writes  the  Acting  Superintendent  of  Sanitation,  F.  M.  Hoff- 
man, "so  we  are  unable  to  give  any  exact  observation  on  its  bearing  toward 
public  health,  but  will  say  that  a  great  many  old  nuisances  have  been  cleaned 
up  thereby." 

The  City  has  also  been  delivering  manure  to  land  which  is  owned  by 
the  City  and  is  being  cultivated  by  workhouse  prisoners  during  the 
period  when  there  is  the  least  demand  for  it  elsewhere. 

Quoting  from  "  Reports  on  Collection  and  Disposal  of  Refuse 
and  Garbage,"  of  the  Columbus  Department  of  Public  Service: 

"  Previous  to  April  1,  1912,  the  City  collected  free  of  charge  all  the  manure 
from  the  different  stables.  On  February  13,  1912,  the  CouncU  passed  Ordi- 
nance No.  26245  to  regulate  the  collection  of  manure.  This  ordinance  pro- 
vided that,  if  any  person  or  persons  desired  to  have  the  manure  removed  from 
stable  or  stables,  they  would  be  compelled  to  take  out  a  permit  fof  such 
service  at  a  yearly  charge  of  $3  for  one  horse;  $5  for  two,  and  $1  for  each  addi- 
tional horse,  v^ter  the  ordinance  became  a  law,  the  Department  com- 
menced to  notify  the  public  that  from  and  after  April  1,  1912,  no  manure 
would  be  removed  without  payment  of  the  fee.  Since  that  date  the  owners 
of  976  horses  have  paid  $1665  to  the  City  Treasurer. 

"  The  sale  of  manure  is  a  perplexing  problem.  Between  September  1st 
and  June  1st,  the  demand  for  manure  is  greatly  in  excess  of  the  supply,  and 
the  City  could  sell  three  or  four  times  as  much  as  is  collected.  From  June  1st 
to  September  1st,  there  is  practically  no  demand,  as  the  farmers  cannot  handle 
it  during  that  time.  There  should  be  some  method  devised  to  store  the 
manure  during  this  period,  when  by  order  of  the  Board  of  Health  we  are  pro- 
hibited from  holding  it  within  the  city  awaiting  the  marketing  period.  The 
manure  we  were  ordered  to  dispose  of  at  once  this  summer  had  to  be  given 
away  at  a  loss  of  $750  to  the  City. 

"  The  price  received  is  $1.50  for  a  wagon  load;  $7.50  for  a  30-ton  car; 
$10  for  a  40-ton;  and  $12.50  for  a  50-ton  car.  These  prices  are  based  on  coal 
cars  of  these  capacities,  and  do  not  mean  that  these  cars  hold  that  much 
manure.  The  sale  of  manure  collected  (130  car  loads  and  the  remainder  by 
the  wagon  load)  gave  the  City  a  revenue  of  $4,106.85. 


584     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

"  The  collection  of  manure  is  made  under  the  following  rules:  Whenever  a 
person  or  persons  pay  to  the  City  Treasurer  the  ordinance  charge  for  manure 
collection,  the  department  is  notified.  The  name,  address,  permit  number, 
and  number  of  horses  are  recorded  in  alphabetical  order. 

"  Each  driver  (four  being  used  in  the  collection)  is  given  a  separate  list 
of  barns,  and  every  evening  reports  the  places  collected  from.  The  date  of 
each  collection  is  noted  in  the  ofRce  record.  Thus,  the  department  is  always 
able  to  show  the  date  of  every  collection  from  each  place,  and  to  see  that  col- 
lections are  made  as  frequently  as  necessary." 

A  detailed  statement  of  the  receipts  from  and  the  cost  of  collection  and  the 
sale  of  manure  collected,  follows : 

Total  number  of  loads  collected  (year  1912) 3,720 

Total  number  of  tons 7,440 

Total  number  of  yards 18,600 

Cost  of  teams  and  labor $7,625.58 

Superintendent,  inspection 318.82 

Repairs  and  miscellaneous 205.70 

Cash  paid  to  City  Treasurer 4,081.35 

Cash  on  hand  December  31,  1912 15.00 

Open  accounts  on  book  for  year  1912 10.50 

Sale  of  manure  permits 1,664.00 

Total $5,770.58 

Total  operating  cost 8,150.10 

Total  receipts 5,770.85 

Net  cost $2,379.25 

Cost  of  collection  per  load $2.19 

Cost  of  collection  per  load,  receipts  deducted. .  0.64 

Cost  of  collection  per  ton 1.10 

Cost  of  collection  per  ton,  receipts  deducted ....  0.32 

9.  Canada. — In  Winnipeg,  Edmonton,  and  other  Canadian  cities, 
as  there  is  no  demand  for  manure  as  a  fertilizer,  it  is  incinerated,  but 
how  successfully  and  at  what  cost  we  are  at  present  unable  to  state. 
Table  173  shows  the  quantities  collected  in  Winnipeg  during  the  years 
1911  to  1914,  inclusive. 

E.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  present  status  of  stable  treatment  of  manure  in  the  cities 
and  towns  of  America  is  not  wholly  satisfactory,  because  not  enough 
attention  is  given  to  the  prevention  of  fly  breeding.  All  reasonable 
methods  of  accomplishing  the  elimination  of  flies  should  be  required 
of  stable  owners.      We    have   given  extended   information  on  this 


STABLE  REFUSE 


585 


subject.  Instead  of  being  fairly  regular,  the  removal  of  manure  is 
irregular,  particularly  during  the  critical  summer  season.  More 
suitable,  and  in  hot  weather,  more  frequent,  collections  should  be 
made. 


TABLE  173. — Manure  Collection  in  Winnipeg,  Man. 
Quantities  in  Tons 

Data  from  Annual  Reports,  Dept.  of  Public  Health. 


Year 

Population 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Totals 

Tons  per  1000  population 
per  year 

Pounds  per  1000  population 
per  day 


1911 


1912 


1913 


1914 


151,958 


166,553 


184,730 


204,000 


88.70 

102.89 

115.90 

75.83 

110.23 

82.89 

81.91 

90.10 

87.62 

103.04 

105.25 

120.43 


115.22 
110.41 
121.12 
114.48 
116.73 
116.84 
105.80 
125.00 
110.02 
146.25 
141.10 
118.78 


91.85 
132.30 
152.27 
142.63 
144.72 
125.70 
150.40 
153.30 
157.75 
157.10 
142.57 
155.15 


1164.79 

7.67 
49.5 


1441.75 


8.65 


55.8 


1705.74 

9.24 
59.6 


180.98 
178.70 
211.50 
209.33 
192.17 
229.55 
229.57 
192.50 
188.48 
209.55 
209.70 
235.05 


2467.08 

12.08 
78.0 


Experience  favors  a  municipal  service,  to  supplement  the  private 
endeavor  by  a  close  inspection  and  supervision,  but  in  both  cases  the 
service  should  be  paid  for  by  the  corporations  or  persons  on  whose 
premises  the  manure  is  produced.  Keeping  horses  is  a  private 
matter,  and  is  similar  to  conducting  a  business. 

The  method  of  final  disposal  depends  entirely  on  local  conditions. 
Utilization  as  a  fertilizer  and  destruction  by  burning  are  the  two  best 
methods.  When  properly  mixed  with  ashes,  manure  may  be 
dumped,  if  kept  well  covered  to  prevent  fly  breeding. 


CHAPTER  XV 
STREET  REFUSE 

Street  sweepings  consist  of  the  refuse  which  accumulates  on  the 
surfaces  of  streets,  roads,  alleys,  walks,  and  other  areas.  When  paved 
with  stone,  roadways  have  been  swept  and  cleaned  since  Greek  and 
Roman  civilization.  Unpaved  roads,  however,  were  hardly  ever 
cleaned.  They  were  repaired,  or  the  surfaces  reshaped,  whenever 
considered  desirable.  In  many  cases  rubbish  was  thrown  on  them 
and  leveled,  so  that  earth  roads  were  gradually  raised,  until,  after 
centuries,  they  were  6  ft.  or  more  above  the  original  level,  as  dis- 
closed by  excavations  in  Italy  and  Central  Europe.  Rome  and  Prague, 
not  fifty  years  ago,  gave  this  evidence. 

The  problem  of  the  disposal  of  street  sweepings  did  not  arise 
seriouslj''  until  modern  times,  when  street  paving  became  more 
general,  and  the  removal  of  city  refuse  more  desirable.  Short  hauls 
permitted  first  a  simple  dumping  at  suitable  places  near  the  out- 
skirts of  a  city;  but  the  fact  that  sweepings  from  paved  streets  con- 
tained a  large  quantity  of  manure,  and  that  they  were  increasing  in 
volume,  suggested  their  utilization  for  agricultural  purposes.  Such 
disposal  prevails  at  this  day  in  many  cities  of  Europe.  In  quite 
recent  years,  the  quantity  of  manure  gathered  from  streets,  how- 
ever, has  been  decreasing,  with  the  substitution  of  motor  trucks  and 
automobiles  for  horse-drawn  vehicles ;  and  a  still  further  decrease  is  to 
be  expected. 

It  is  not  our  intention  to  give  here  more  than  the  briefest  outline 
of  street  cleaning,  as  this  subject  alone  would  require  a  volume  for 
thorough  discussion.  For  the  present  purpose  we  shall  assume  that 
the  streets  have  been  cleaned,  and  that  the  sweepings,  litter,  dust,  and 
snow  have  been  gathered  at  suitable  points  on  the  street,  where  they 
can  be  collected  and  removed  for  final  disposal. 

Clean  streets  should  be  an  object  of  city  pride.  They  greatly 
improve,  not  only  the  appearance  of  a  city  along  its  highways,  but 
also  the  interior  conditions  of  the  houses,  by  preventing  or  lessening 
dust  that  is  blown  in  and  mud  that  may  be  tracked  in  from  the  street. 
Efficient  street  cleaning  also  affects  the  inhabitants  themselves,  par- 

586 


STREET  REFUSE  587 

ticularly  the  poorer  classes,  as  to  their  appearance,  pride,  and  even 
health,  which  was  attested  by  the  late  Col.  George  E.  Waring,  Jr., 
Street  Cleaning  Commissioner  of  New  York  City,  and  is  demon- 
strated by  a  number  of  manufacturing  towns  in  the  Essen  District  of 
Germany.  Visitors  are  influenced  by  the  appearance  of  the  street 
surfaces  almost  as  much  as  by  the  buildings. 

The  principal  methods  of  street  cleaning  now  in  use  are  machine 
sweeping,  hand  sweeping,  and  street  flushing  by  hose  and  by  machines. 
Street  sprinkling  is  not  a  cleaning  method,  but  is  used  merely  to  lay 
the  dust.  In  recent  years  much  attention  has  been  given  to  street 
flushing,  as  this  is  the  best  means  of  removing  the  fine  dust  and  the 
bacteria  that  are  c^yntained  in  it.  The  New  York  Street  Cleaning 
Commission  found  that  flushing  caused  a  reduction  of  bacteria  in  the 
air  above  the  pavement  of  from  239  to  85  colonies.  European  evi- 
dence points  to  similar  reductions  accomplished  by  flushing. 

In  order  to  secure  a  satisfactory  result  with  these  methods,  it  is 
necessary  to  have  a  competent  organization  of  faithful  and  efficient 
men.  In  those  cities  which  have  the  best  trained  corps,  permanently 
engaged,  independent  of  political  appointments,  rewarded  for  good  or 
better  work,  and  taking  pride  therein,  we  find  the  cleanest  streets, 
provided  the  pavements  are  modern,  and  have  been  well  designed  and 
evenly  laid,  so  as  to  present  a  regular  and  smooth  surface.  Pave- 
ments must  have  these  characteristics  if  clean  streets  are  continuously 
to  be  maintained. 

The  best  streets  for  heavy  traffic  are  paved  with  stone  blocks,  but 
in  order  that  such  pavements  may  be  well  cleaned  at  the  least  expense, 
the  blocks  must  be  smoothly  dressed  and  set  with  narrow  joints, 
between  \  and  \  in.  in  width.  Such  pavements  are  found  in  many 
European  cities,  the  best  being  those  made  with  blocks  of  Pen- 
maenmaur  granite  in  Liverpool.  The  best  pavements  for  general 
city  conditions  on  light  grades  are  made  of  sheet  or  block  asphalt,  of 
hard  and  tough  bricks,  or  of  wood  or  concrete.  Such  pavements  are 
smooth,  so  that  cleaning  is  easy,  and  can  be  thoroughly  done  both 
by  sweeping  and  by  flushing.  Less  hard  and  less  smooth  pavements 
produce  more  dust  by  attrition.  The  ordinary  roughly  dressed  stone 
blocks  with  1-in.  joints,  cobble  and  rubble  pavements,  are  almost 
impossible  to  keep  free  from  fine  dust  raised  by  the  wind. 

A.  MATERIALS 

The  materials  to  be  removed  are  a  mixture  of  freshly  deposited 
pieces,  which  may  be  picked  up  by  hand  and  put  into  can  or  bag 
carriers,  fine  particles,  which   must  be  swept  into  piles  for  loading  by 


588     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

shovel,  and  still  finer  particles,  ground  to  dust  and  likely  to  be  blown 
about  by  the  wind;  the  latter  are  best  removed  by  flushing. 

In  order  to  lessen  the  work  of  removing  the  materials  which  make 
up  street  refuse,  it  is  imperative  to  keep  them  as  much  under  control 
as  possible.  We  cannot  control  dust,  smoke,  horse  droppings,  dirt 
dropped  from  vehicles,  mud  dragged  on  from  unpaved  roads  and 
alleys,  and  falling  leaves  in  the  autumn;  but  we  can  prevent,  by  regu- 
lations and  their  enforcement,  the  careless  scattering  of  refuse  on  the 
streets,  by  providing  special  cans  for  the  reception  of  much  of  it, 
thus  facilitating  the  collection  and  removal. 

The  coarse  and  fine  materials,  the  litter  and  dust,  come  from  vari- 
ous sources: 

First,  the  droppings  from  horses  and  smaller  animals,  similar  to 
stable  refuse  (Chapter  XIV).  This  material  may  become  offensive  by 
being  ground  into  dust,  raised  into  the  air  by  the  wind,  and  blown 
into  the  buildings. 

Second,  miscellaneous  litter  thrown  upon  the  streets,  by  pedes- 
trians, from  sidewalks  and  buildings,  and  dropped  from  rubbish 
and  service  wagons,  and  push  carts.  It  is  chiefly  paper,  pieces  of 
wood,  fruit  skins,  earth,  sand,  stones,  etc. 

Third,  material  dragged  by  wheels  from  unpaved  to  paved  streets. 

Fourth,  building  material,  during  the  construction  of  buildings, 
street  and  sewer  repairs,  and  temporary  storage  of  such  ma- 
terials, etc. 

Fifth,  leaves,  and  sweepings  from  buildings  and  sidewalks. 

Sixth,  snow  and  ice. 

Of  these  materials,  one  part  consists  of  dust  either  deposited  from 
the  air  or  originating  on  the  streets  through  attrition  and  disinte- 
gration; another  part  consists  of  the  larger  and  heavier  materials; 
and  a  third  material  is  snow  and  ice. 

(a)  Dust  is  the  most  objectionable  part  of  street  refuse,  as  it 
enters  houses  and  settles  on  the  floors  and  furniture,  and  on  goods  in 
stores.  It  can  be  settled  and  compacted  on  the  streets  temporarily 
by  sprinkling,  and  then  removed  by  brooming  to  piles  to  await  col- 
lection by  carts;  or,  it  can  be  flushed  into  the  sewers  by  the  use  of 
hose  or  water  carts.  We  are  here  interested  in  removing  only  the 
former,  as  the  entrance  into  the  sewers  obviates  the  necessity  for  col- 
lection by  vehicle. 

Table  174  gives  an  analysis  of  street  dust  from  the  down-town 
district  of  Chicago,  taken  from  data  reported  by  Richard  T.  Fox  in 
1915.  The  greatest  quantity  of  dust  appears  between  the  rails  of 
street  railroads.  On  the  streets  of  residential  districts,  generally,  a 
greater  quantity  of  manure  was  found  than  in  other  districts. 


STREET  REFUSE 


589 


TABLE  174. — Quantity  and  Composition  of  Street  Dust 
IN  the  Down-town  District  of  Chicago 

Reported  by  Richard  T.  Fox,  191.0. 


Item 

Pounds  per  1000  Square  Yards 

Sidewalk 

Roadway 

Street 

railway 

right  of  way 

Carbon  and  organic  matter 

Silica 

Calcium  carbonate 

0.67 
0.96 
0.20 
0.02 
0.11 
0.04 

3.00 
4.70 
0.60 
0.30 
0.25 
0.15 

25.00 
50.50 
6.00 
2.30 
3.00 
0.20 

Magnesium  carbonate 

Iron 

Undetermined 

Totals 

2.00 

9.00 

88.00 

Fox  estimated  that  the  daily  quantity  of  street  dust  in  Chicago 
varied  from  1  to  10  cu.  ft.  or  more,  on  1000  sq.  ft.  of  pavement. 

Extensive  observations  on  street  dust  quantities  were  made  by 
Dr.  Renk  in  the  outskirts  of  Dresden,  in  1910,  to  determine  the  quan- 
tity of  dust  in  the  air  2.5  m.  (8.2  ft.)  above  the  street  surface.  The 
quantities  of  dust  found  varied  from  0  to  1  mg.  in  1  cu.  m.  of  air. 
About  0.5  mg.  in  1  cu.  m.  was  considered  to  be  the  allowable  limit, 
after  which  dust  became  unpleasant. 

In  1907  the  New  York  Commission  on  Street  Cleaning  made  some 
special  observations  on  street  dust.  Table  175  is  taken  from  the 
report  of  that  Commission. 

The  samples  in  Table  176,  taken  after  regular  cleaning,  show  a  high 
percentage  of  ash,  because  there  would  be  in  them  less  combustible 
waste,  such  as  horse  droppings,  paper,  and  wood  than  in  the  general 
street  dirt  before  the  cleaning. 

Dust  is  best  removed  by  water  flushing.  If  swept  up,  sometimes 
even  after  a  slight  sprinkling,  it  produces  objectionable  conditions  in 
the  air  above.  Flushing,  to  be  most  effective,  necessitates  smooth 
pavements. 

(6)  The  larger  and  heavier  materials  vary  greatly  in  size  and 
quantity.  They  reach  a  minimum  during  the  winter  and  a  maximum 
in  the  spring,  when  the  accumulations  of  the  winter  are  being  removed. 
The  material  consists  mostly  of  rubbish,  which  is  chiefly  general 
litter,  such  as  paper,  straw,  boxes,  fruit  skins,  and  pieces  of  wood. 


590     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE  175. — ■Quantity  of  Street  Dirt  (Mostly  Dust) 

Remaining  on  Street  Surfaces  after  Regular  Street  Cleaning 

IN  New  York  (Manhattan). 

Observation  by  Commission  on  Street  Cleaning,  1907 

Computed  quantities  per  1000  sq.  yd. 


Pavement 

Travel 

How  swept 

Volume,  in 
cubic  feet 

Weight,  in 
pounds 

Weight  per 
cubic  foot 

Asphalt 

Asphalt      

Light 

Medium 

Light 

Light 

Heavy 

Light 

Heavy 

Heavy 

Hand 

Hand 

Machine 

Hand 

Hand 

Machine 

Hand 

Hand 

0.092 
0.206 
0.573 
0.590 
0.648 
0.830 
4.802 
1.476 

3.63 
13.65 
37.75 
38.70 
30.77 
35.83 
191.25 
30.35 

39.5 
66.2 
65.9 
65.6 
47.5 
43.2 
39.8 
20.6 

Block  asphalt 

Block  asphalt 

Asphalt 

Asphalt 

Granite  block 

Wood  block 

Averages 

1.152 

47.74 

48.5 

Analysis  of  Average  Mixture  of  the  Material  in  Table  175. 

Moisture  (air-dried) 2 .  35% 

Volatile  combustible  matter 17 .  67% 

Fixed  carbon 5.84% 

Ash 74 .  14% 


100.00% 

including  also  earth  and  wasted  material  from  building  operations. 
In  dry  weather,  also,  this  street  dirt  becomes  dusty,  in  wet  weather 
muddJ^ 

Leaves  sometimes  form  an  important  part  of  the  sweepings,  as 
their  quantity  may  be  quite  large  on  streets  lined  with  trees.  The 
time  when  their  removal  is  required  is  generally  confined  to  about  two 
months  in  the  autumn.  They  are  very  light  and  therefore  easily 
blown  about. 

It  is  found  expedient  in  many  cities  to  add  the  cleanings  from  street 
catch-basins  to  the  street  sweepings,  and  these  are  together  shoveled 
into  piles  and  loaded  into  the  street-cleaning  wagons. 

The  larger  materials  contain  less  moisture  than  manure,  unless 
they  are  collected  in  rainy  weather.  They  are  also  less  likely  to  create 
nuisances,  because  more  resistant  to  decomposition.  In  1911  the 
specific  gravity  of  Berlin's  street  sweepings  from  asphalt  pavements  in 
wet  weather,  and  when  strewn  with  some  sand,  was  1.8.  In  dry 
weather  and  with  no  sand,  it  was  from  0.6  to  0.8. 


STREET  REFUSE 


591 


TABLE  176. — Analyses  of  Street  Sweepings 

Made    by    Commission    on    Street   Cleaning    (1907) 

IN  Manhattan,  New  York 


Pavcmerit 

Travel 

Wcatlicr 

1'ekcentagks 

Moisture, 
air-dried 

Volatile 

com- 
bustible 

Fixed 
carbon 

Asli 

Sheet  asphalt .  .  . 
Sheet  asphalt .  .  . 
Wood  block 

Light 

Heavy 

Heavy 

Dry 
Dry 

Rainy 

3.56 
2.93 
2.56 

54.03 
64.72 
54.31 

0.15 
11.96 
13.36 

42.26 
20.39 
29.77 

Included  in  the  Samples  Analyzed  are  the  Following  Materials: 


Phosphorus       Potassium 
pentoxide             oxide 

Total 
nitrogen 

Water-soluble 
phosphorus 
pentoxide 

Sheet  asphalt 

0 . 79              0  73 

1.00 
0.90 

0.74 

0.34 
0.50 
0.16 

Sheet  asphalt    

0.95 
0.70 

0.86 
0.80 

Wood  block 

Occasionally,  street  refuse  materials  have  been  analyzed,  measured, 
and  weighed.     Some  of  the  results  are  given  in  Tables  175  and  176. 

Table  177  contains  information  fiom  several  cities  concerning  the 
composition  of  street  sweepings  and  their  value  as  fertilizers.  It  was 
compiled,  and  enlarged  with  some  original  analyses,  by  the  New 
York  Street  Cleaning  Commission  of  1907. 

The  sweepings  from  a  street  subject  to  both  heavy  and  light  traffic 
show,  when  incinerated,  a  much  higher  percentage  of  ash  for  light 
than  for  heavy  traffic,  because  there  would  be  fewer  horse  droppings 
and  less  other  combustible  waste,  such  as  paper,  wood,  etc. 

Table  178,  made  up  from  figures  given  in  the  Report  of  the  Com- 
mission on  Street  Cleaning,  of  New  York  City,  1907,  gives  the  quan- 
tities of  street  sweepings  in  the  five  boroughs  of  the  city  in  1904,  1905, 
and  1906,  from  which  the  pounds  per  capita  per  annum  have  been 
deduced.     See  also  Table  25  in  Chapter  I. 

Table  179  shows  the  quantity  of  material  collected  by  the  regular 
sweeping  service  of  New  York  City  in  1907. 


592     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE  177. — Composition  of  Street  Sweepings  and 

Figures  are  given 


City 


Year . 


Source  of  Material,  Conditions, 
etc. 


Kind 

of 

pavement 

from 

which 

collected 


Com  PC 


Moisture 


Organic 
matter 


Washington. 

1898 

Washington. 

1898 

Washington. 

1898 

Cincinnati.  . 

1889 

Berlin 

New  York. . 

1896 

New  York.  . 

1896 

New  York.  . 

1907 

New  York. . 

1907 

New  York.  . 

1907 

Street  sweepings  from  dump,  com- 
posite sample,  several  months  old . 

Street  sweepings  from  dump,  most- 
ly manure,  6  to  8  months  old .... 

Fresh  hand  sweepings  taken  from 
dump,  material  mostly  manure .  .  . 

Average  fresh  sweepings  taken  from 
Race  Street 

Street  sweepings 

From  New  York  Streets 

From  New  York  streets 

Street  sweepings  collected  by  Com- 
mission on  89th  Street 

Street  sweepings  collected  by  Com- 
mission on  Warren  Street 

Street  sweepings  collected  by  Com- 
mission on  Broadway  between  37th 
and  40th  Streets 

Pure  horse  manure 

Stable  manure 

Well-kept  mixed  stable  manure 


Asphalt 

Asphalt 

Asphalt 

Asphalt 
Asphalt 

Asphalt 
Woodblock 

Asphalt 


45.7 

28.7 

39.5 

46.11 
39.89 
32.88 
21.68 

23.56 

2  4  2 . 56 


2  2.93 
11.24 
73.27 


16.3 

14.5 

28.9 

26.9 
22.44 

3  54.18 
3  67.67 

3  76.68 


1  Uncertain  whether  reported  analyses  are  based  on  included  moisture  or  not. 

2  Air  dried. 

A  sample,  covering  four  weeks  of  sweepings  in  Trenton,  gave  the 
following  analysis:* 

Nitrogen 0 .  18 

Phosphoric  acid 0 .  30 

Potash 0. 19 

The  analysis,  by  Petermann  and  Richard,  of  the  sweepings  in 
Brussels,  Belgium,  in  1900,  in  parts  per  1000,  is: 

Nitrogen 4 .  72 

Carbon,  oxygen,  and  hydrogen 307 .  28 

Organic  matter 312 .  00 

Phosphoric  acid 5 .  30 

Potash 2.30 

Iron,  lime,  and  aluminum 85 .  70 

Sand 594.70 

1000.00 

•  New  Jersey  Agricultural  Experiment  Station,  1895. 


STREET  REFUSE 


593 


Manure,  Organic  Matter,  and  Value  as  Fertilizer 

in  percentages. 


SITION. 

Analysis  for  Fertii  izer. 

Authority  and  Remarks 

Or- 
ganic 
in 
dry 
mate- 
rial 

As  Reported 

Reduced  to  Dry- 
Material 

In- 
organic 
matter 

Nitro- 
gen 

Phos- 
phoric 
acid 

Potash 

Nitro- 
gen 

Phos- 
phoric 
acid 

Potash 

38.0 

56.8 

31.6 

27.0 
37.67 

42.26 
29.77 

20.39 

30.0 

20.4 

47.7 

50.0 
37.2 

»56.2 
3  69.4 

379.0 

0.39 

0.32 

0.55 

0.91 
0.48 
0.29 
0.21 

1.00 

0.74 

0.90 
0.74 
0.50 
0.50 

0.08 

0.08 

0.10 

1.31 
0.45 
0.38 
0.32 

0.79 

0.70 

0.95 
1.45 
0.30 
0.25 

0.09 

0.11 

0.37 

0.33 
0.37 
0.37 
0.32 

0  73 

0.80 

0.86 
2.82 
0.60 
0.50 

0.72 

0.45 

0.91 

0.91 

■  .  .  .  . 

0.43 

0.27 

1.04 

0.76 

0.93 
»0.83 
U.87 

0.15 

0.11 

0.17 

1.31 

0.57 
0.41 

0.82 

0.72 

0.98 
1.63 
1.12 

0.17 

0.15 

0.61 

0.33 

0.55 
0.34 

076 

0.82 

0.89 
3.18 
2.24 

Bui.  No.  55,  U.  S.  Dept.  Ag. 

F.  C.  WaUace 

Vogel.   See  Bui.  No.  55 

1   Van  Slyke,  N.  Y.  Agricul- 
J       tural  Experiment  Sta. 

Lederle  Laboratories 

Mass.  Agr.  Exp.  Sta. 
Year  Book,  1884,  Agr.  Dept. 
Van  Slyke,   N.   Y.,   Agricul- 
tural Experiment  Station 

'  Reported  as  volatile  combustible  matter  and  fixed  carbon. 

*  Sixty  per  cent,  water  in  original  sample  collected  on  a  wet  day. 

An  analysis  of  the  street  sweepings  from  asphalt  paved  streets  in 
Berlin  in  1892  *  gave  the  following  composition: 

Moisture 39.89% 

Ash ..  37.67% 

Organic  matter 22 .  44% 

100.00% 

Total  nitrogen 0.479% 

Ammoniacal  nitrogen 0 .  004% 

Phosphoric  acid 0 .  452% 

Potash 0.370% 

Lime 1.891% 

Magnesia 0 .  347% 

In  Hamburg  the  weight  of  street  sweepings  varied,  according  to 
the  contained  moisture,  from  750  to  1100  kg.  per  cu.  m.  (1264  to 

•  Vogel,  in  Mittheilungen  der  deutachen  Landwirtschafts  Gesellschaft,  1892. 


594     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


TABLE    178. — Quantities   of  Street   Sweepings   Collected 
IN  THE   Five  Boroughs  op  New  York  City 

(TJeport  of  Commission  on  Street  Cleaning  and  Waste  Disposal,  New  York  City,  1907, 
pages  12-14) 


Year 

Population 

Cubic  yards 

Tons 

Average 
weight  per 
cubic  yard, 
in  pounds 

Pounds  per 

capita 
per  annum 

Manhattan 

1904 
1905 
1906 

2,060,041 
2,112,528 
2,165,015 

629,506 
659,794 
703,382 

319,789 
335,175 
357,318 

10161 

310 
317 
330 

The  Bronx 

1904 
1905 
1906 

301,161 
362,324 
351,487 

55,020 
60,414 
60,904 

27,950 
30,690 
30,939 

10161 

186 
188 
176 

Brooklyn 

1904 
1905 
1906 

1,349,129 
1,394,766 
1,440,403 

316,760 
314,054 
313,516 

121,953 
120,911 
120,704 

769     • 

181 
173 

168 

Queens 

1904 
1905 
1906 

199,359 
210,949 
222,539 

55,120 
70,934 

21,194 

27,274 

10161 

201 
245 

Richmond 

1904 
1905 
1906 

74,969 
76,956 

78,943 

33,728 
35,262 

30,355 
31,736 

1800  1 

789 
804 

1  It  is  most  probable  that  the  average  weight  was  less  for  Manhattan,  and  correspond- 
ingly greater  for  the  suburban  boroughs,  because  there  was  more  clay  and  sand  in  the 
sweepings.  In  Richmond,  where  the  length  of  earth  roads  was  proportionately  greater, 
the  high  average  may  be  explained  for  the  same  reason. 


STREET  REFUSE 


595 


si  s:!  O  O  > 

>* 

^  u-  ;i' 

fft 

r/1     r/i     'n 

O     O     50     p    T3 

■^ 

•T3    "C    T3 

O^    CJ*    CD     O     c-t- 

13- 

p-  rr  cr 

p    p    p 

3 

o   o   o"  cr  ' 

o 

rr§  §  : 

■s 

.    .     ?r  ?/  ■ 

B 

3 

ooi:^30QOo<; 

o   o   E2   E   o 

o 

o    o    2 

o 

o   o   c;-  q-  o 

o 

^ 

o 

&-  p-            &- 

&. 

■a  o 

o. 

o 

o 

5 

u^ 

3 

^T^  ^  yi^  w  Ul 

*Tl 

t:rj   M   *x] 

p    p    p    o    o 

p 

P     tr   p 

fi"  !^"  P5'  p    B 

c;- 

^•|     ^- 

S   0 

O     fC 

•1    to 

CO 

<  << 

r*    ^ 

p 

p    p 

'^J 

5'  "^ 

> 

1^1  fd  O  ?d  ^ 

w 

*t]  ^  *^ 

H 

?o    p    0    p    p 

p   p   p 

►^ 

» 

i 

1-1    I-)     I-) 

^ 

•< 

3 

0) 

•-J 

s  I 

OJ    ►f^   03   00    v<^ 

CO 

CO    CO    4^ 

^5 

t*^   05   05   CD   00 

to 

Oi    hfa.    >f»- 

s-^ 

O   05   CO   Cn   GO 

t-" 

CO  to  00 

o 

o     < 

a 

h- '     1— '    h-i    h-» 

c    o    ■ 

05    h^^    to    rf^   00 

00 

rf^     Cft     H-" 

?  e" 

S! 

*■   en    to    O    tN2 

CO 

00    CO    Oi 

'--  3 

S 

W    O   05    Oi   Oi 

CO 

to    Oi    Oi 

^    3 

3 
■a 

^ 

o 

oi  C5  *>■  a>  oa 

to 

I-"  to 

^  2. 

o 

^   ~4   Oi    Oi   00 

05 

<i  CO  <i 

c  ■« 

CO 

CO   Oi    h-   Oi   Cn 

^ 

O  M  o 

>*i-   "vl    kfi.    O    to 

k;^ 

h-    OS 

3 

Cn   rf»-   05   Oi   rfi- 

00 

rf>-    Oi 

g"s 

rfi.   O   O   to    hJi' 

M   O    to 

^   CO    *^   00    1-' 

05 

O   CD   C>i 

OS    to   00    O   CSi 

►{i" 

h<^    05    05 

03      "^ 
O 

1— 1    »-'           t-i 

to 

o       i 

o       •= 

2*5    m 

'1 

O    05   ^   O    00 

CO 

00   CO   o 

Cn   ^   Oi    Cn   ■^ 

CO 

O    CO    00 

i  ^ 

■o 

O 

w 

o 

> 

a 

f 

g 

O 

w 

o 

UJ 

ri 

o 

tri 

2; 

o 

o 

0 

f/j 

H 

>A 

W 

S) 

H 

O 

W 

5* 

1^ 

^ 

O 

?d 

1-1 

t?3 

m 

O 

!> 

d 

•?< 

c-i 

> 

:z: 

s 

o 

f« 

'z 

^ 

o 

M 

:^ 

1^ 

r/3 

g 

M 

D 

o 

re 

1^ 
8 

> 

^ 

P 

'Z 

o 

S 

o 

>> 

^ 

5! 

» 

> 

"A 

> 

S! 

:z! 

M 

^ 

K! 

o 

w 

w 

596     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

1854  lb.  per  cubic  yard).  The  quantity  varied  with  the  pavement  and 
the  traffic.  After  a  heavy  rainstorm  there  was  almost  none,  because 
nearly  all  the  material  goes  into  the  sewers.  In  1903  the  annual  cost 
of  collecting  and  dumping  the  sweepings  was  1.14  mark  per  cubic  meter 
(21  cents  per  cubic  yard),  and  0.22  mark  (5|  cents)  per  inhabitant. 

In  Dresden  the  cost  of  street  cleaning  per  square  yard  of  cleaned 
street  surface  per  annum  in  1903  was,  on  asphalt  pavements  about  4 
cents,  on  stone  pavements  about  5  cents,  and  on  macadam  streets 
about  2  cents. 

From  measurements  made  in  recent  years,  the  following  cities 
removed  approximately  the  stated  quantities  of  street  dirt  from  1  sq.  m. 

Population 


•§  400,000 


O  300,000 


100,000 


Fig.  126. 


„.^"5 

^> 

•-€ 

f\ 

^ 

y 

y 

S' 

^ 

/> 

y 

z' 

.^ 

^ 

y 

y 

r 

^, 

■^ 

p 

\^< 

y 

^ 

,.\e.° 

X 

,^v^'^> 

<ss 

y 

^ 

"'Xubie 

Ya 

•ds 

ler 

3ap 

tl 

ler  . 

Lnn 

im. 

__ 

^^ 

^ 

•7^ 

^ 

y^ 

^ 

1.0 


0.8 


O.G 


0.4 


1*1    d 


-Approximate  Annual  Average  Quantities  of  Street  Sweepings 
in  European  Cities. 


of  average  pavement  per  annum:  Berlin,  0.025  cu.  m.;  Hamburg, 
0.022  cu.  m.:  Altona,  0.017  cu.  m.;  and  Kiel,  0.013  cu.  m.  The  quan- 
tities reduced  per  inhabitant  give:  For  Berlin,  0.14  cu.  m.;  for  Ham- 
burg, 0.20  cu.  m.;  for  Altona,  0.09  cu.  m.;  and  for  Kiel,  0.09  cu.  m. 

Fig.  126  gives  an  approximate  idea  of  the  annual  average  quanti- 
ties of  street  sweepings  in  European  cities  of  different  sizes,  for  pop- 
ulations up  to  2,000,000.  It  shows  the  total  quantities  removed,  and 
the  quantities  per  capita  and  per  square  yard  of  cleaned  street  surface. 
It  was  compiled  by  Franz  Niedner,  City  Engineer  of  Dresden,  Ger- 
many, in  1911. 

(c)  Snow,  when  considered  to  be  a  part  of  municipal  refuse,  is 
that  which  falls  on  the  roadways  and  is  thrown  on  them  from  the  side- 


STREET  REFUSE  597 

walks  and  private  premises.     It  includes  the  slush  and  ice  on  the 
streets. 

When  the  quantity  of  snow  that  has  fallen  is  large  enough  to  inter- 
fere with  the  movement  of  pedestrians  on  the  sidewalks  and  vehicles 
on  the  roadways,  it  is  necessary  to  remove  it.  It  is  usual  to  clear  the 
snow  from  sidewalks  into  the  streets,  as  this  is  necessary  for  the  com- 
fort of  pedestrians.  Vehicles  can  readily  use  a  roadway  until  it  has 
from  2  to  3  in.  of  fresh  snow  on  it.  When  the  quantity  is  greater, 
sleighs  are  substituted  in  the  smaller  cities  and  in  the  suburbs  of  the 
larger  ones.  Only  in  those  streets  having  the  principal  travel,  and 
the  main  streets  of  the  larger  cities,  is  the  snow  removed  artificially 
by  the  respective  city  departments. 

Contract  removal,  if  paid  for  by  quantity,  requires  careful  measure- 
ments. It  is  extremely  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  determine  the 
exact  quantity  of  snow  removed.  One  method  is  to  measure  with  a 
gage  the  depth  of  snow  that  has  fallen  and  use  it  for  the  area  of  the 
street  on  which  it  has  fallen.  However,  the  depth  is  not  uniform 
over  large  areas,  and  it  would  be  difficult  even  to  estimate  it  cor- 
rectly. In  such  measurements  great  accuracy  is  needed,  as  a  dif- 
ference of  T^Tj-  ft.  in  depth  would  make  a  difference  per  acre  of  16 
cu.  yd.  in  bulk.  Another  method,  more  commonly  used,  is  to  count 
the  cart  loads  removed.  Here,  too,  are  difficulties,  even  when  assum- 
ing the  count  to  be  correct.  It  is  hardly  practicable  to  measure  the 
quantity  of  snow  piled  in  a  wagon  within  5%,  and  this  figure  may  be 
materially  greater.  For  a  depth  of  3  in.  of  snow  removed,  this  would 
represent  an  error  of  more  than  20  cu.  yd.  per  acre.  Occasionally,  it 
might  be  practicable  to  weigh  the  loaded  carts,  which  would  be  the 
best  method. 

The  snow  when  it  has  fallen  is  light,  and  begins  to  shrink.  It 
packs  closely  when  wet.  In  New  York  City  it  was  estimated  in  1907 
that  the  shrinkage,  from  the  time  when  the  snow  fell  to  the  time  when 
it  was  compacted  in  the  carts,  was  about  70%,  indicating  that  when 
shoveled  into  piles  and  subsequently  into  carts  its  volume  is  only 
30%  of  that  which  fell  originally. 

B.  COLLECTION 

We  have  assumed  that  the  sweepings,  dust,  rubbish,  or  snow 
have  been  gathered  at  suitable  points  from  which  they  can  be  collected. 
The  collection  should  be  done  with  as  little  offense  as  possible  along 
the  routes  followed  by  the  wagons. 

1.  Piles  and  Receptacles. — Collection  begins  at  the  piles  or  recep- 
tacles in  which  the  material  to  be  removed  has  been  gathered.  In 
New  York  City  the  actual  distances  between  piles  or  receptacles  on 


598    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

the  streets  are  about  260  ft.  on  the  main  avenues  (or  at  the  street 
corners)  and  about  700  ft.  on  the  side  streets.  The  piles  should  be 
placed  near  the  gutters,  where  they  can  be  readily  shoveled  into  the 
carts  with  shovels  of  suitable  size  and  shape,  so  that  the  material  may 
be  taken  up  easily  in  large  quantities,  and  the  surface  of  the  pavement 
left  clean.  The  piles  should  be  at  such  distances  apart  as  may  be  found 
most  practicable,  depending  on  the  quantity  of  material  to  be  piled. 

In  down-town  Chicago,  curb  boxes  for  street  sweepings  are  placed 
at  each  sidewalk  intersection  and  at  intermediate  points,  the  distance 
between  boxes  being  about  200  ft. 

The  piles  should  not  be  too  large,  requiring  the  refuse  to  be  swept 
too  far,  and  they  should  not  be  too  much  exposed  to  disturbance  by 
wagon  wheels  or  wind. 

In  some  cities,  where  the  street  travel  is  dense,  instead  of  having 
exposed  piles,  the  men  have  cans,  or  small  trucks  on  wheels,  into 
which  they  put  all  street  sweepings  and  rubbish,  and  leave  them  at 
the  sidewalks  to  await  collection. 

As  much  of  the  street  rubbish  originates  on  the  sidewalks,  and 
from  there  finds  its  way  into  the  roadway,  it  is  a  growing  practice  to 
place  receptacles  at  fixed  points  on  the  sidewalks,  especially  for  the 
use  of  pedestrians  and  house  occupants,  and  in  which  all  litter  or 
trash  can  be  deposited  to  await  the  call  of  the  collection  wagon.  Such 
cans  should  be  placed  at  the  curb  or  at  the  house  lines  as  frequently 
as  the  local  necessity  demands.  The  more  frequent  use  of  cans 
would  greatly  improve  the  appearance  of  our  streets,  particularly  in 
large  cities.  The  better  appearance  of  the  streets  in  many  European 
cities  is  largely  due  to  this  single  expedient. 

The  receptacles  or  cans  should  be  of  metal,  and  vary  in  size 
according  to  needs.  They  should  be  marked  plainly  so  that  their 
purpose  is  evident,  and  have  painted  on  them  the  name  of  the  depart- 
ment conducting  the  service.  Fig.  127  shows  rubbish  cans  used  in 
New  York  City. 

Many  cities  in  Europe  have  pits  on  the  sidewalk,  covered  with  a 
lid,  in  which  the  cans  are  placed  and  filled.  The  cans  are  lifted  out 
when  the  collection  wagon  passes,  and  either  dumped  into  it,  or 
placed  on  it  in  exchange  for  an  empty  can  which  is  set  into  the  pit. 

The  collection  of  leaves,  due  to  their  lightness,  should  be  confined 
to  calm  days,  and  then  be  taken  with  the  other  sweepings  from  the 
same  piles  or  cans,  and  removed  with  them.  In  some  cities,  having 
many  shade  trees,  the  leaf  problem  is  a  large  one.  Rochester  has 
made  some  studies  of  this  problem,*  and  it  is  suggested  that  private 

*  Report  on  the  Problem   of   Street  Cleaning  in  the  City  of  Rochester,  N.  Y.,  by  the 
Bureau  of  Municipal  Research.     October,  1918. 


STREET  REFUSE 


599 


parties  gather  up  their  leaves  for  collection  and  place  them  in  burlap 
bags,  or  in  barrels  other  than  those  for  the  house  rubbish,  if  a  separate 
disposal  is  required.  The  street  sweepers  may  also  be  supplied  with 
bags,  so  that  leaves  can  be  packed  into  them  from  the  piles.  It  is  also 
suggested  that  private  persons  either  do  their  own  carting  or  obtain 
a  permit  to  Ijurn  the  leaves  in  wire  barrels  on  their  own  grounds. 


.JCIIN   TMK 


IJKK  TUfH  CAiV 


OBIVTHElii 


mr.  THIS  CAN 


Fig.  127.— Street  Rubbish  Cans. 


When  gathering  litter  from  the  pavements,  the  collector  usually 
carries  with  him  a  stick  having  a  steel  point  at  the  end,  with  which  to 
pick  up  and  throw  the  pieces  of  rubbish  into  a  burlap  or  canvas  bag 
held  in  his  other  hand  or  attached  to  a  frame  on  wheels,  which  is 
subsequently  emptied  into  a  can  or  wagon.  The  bag  generally  has  a 
spreader  to  keep  the  top  open. 

Fig.  128  shows  a  street  refuse  receptacle  used  in  Dallas,  Tex.  It 
is  a  galvanized-iron  stand,  with  hinged  cover  and  closed  sides,  and  is 


600     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

bolted  to  clips  set  in  the  sidewalk.     In  this  is  placed  a  frame  holding 
a  bag  for  the  reception  of  sweepings. 

Fig.  129  is  a  light,  two-wheeled  cart,  with  a  small  supporting 
wheel  at  the  back,  and  is  used  as  a  can  or  bag  carrier.  It  is  built 
entirely  of  iron  and  steel,  the  frame  being  of  steel  tubing  and  the 
platform  of  sheet  steel.     The  wheels  are  30  in.  in  diameter  and  the 


Lega  ff  Receptacle  Bolted  to 
Clips  Set  in  Sidewalk 
Sides  and  Hinied  Top  of 
Receptacle  of  No.     Gal.  Iroa 


Strap-IroA  Stiffenep 


Upper  Angle 
lion  Stltfener 


DETAIL  OF  A 


BAG  AND  FRAME 
BhovTB  EemoTed  From  Receptacle 

Fig.  128. — Street  Refuse  Receptacle,  Dallas,  Tex. 


axle  is  |-in.  solid  steel.  The  can  is  held  in  place  on  the  platform  by  a 
hook  which  slides  on  a  supporting  bar  at  the  back.  The  bag  holder  is 
a  wrought-iron  ring  having  a  rod  at  each  side.  The  bag  is  folded 
over  the  ring  and  held  by  two  spring  clamps.  The  holder  is  readily 
placed  in  position  by  inserting  the  rods  into  the  top  openings  of  the 
tubular  frame  of  the  carrier.  This  vehicle  is  made  by  the  Tarrant 
Manufacturing  Company. 

2.  Wagons. — There    are    various    designs    for    w^agons    used    for 
street  refuse  removal.     The  design  should  be   such  as  to  make  the 


STREET  REFUSE 


601 


loading  convenient.  Some  vehicles  have  a  small  light  crane  attached, 
to  facilitate  the  loading;  others  carry  an  inclined  runway  with  small 
truck,  so  that  the  cans  can  be  rolled  up  to  the  wagon;  some  are 
arranged  to  receive  full  cans  and  return  empty  ones;  some  have  a 
floor  only  12  in.  above  the  pavement,  to  facilitate  loading  with  filled 
cans. 

All  wagons  should  have  a  cover  of  canvas  or  light  rigid  material, 
which  cover  may  be  left  open  when  receiving  the  load,  and  closed 
when  the  wagon  is  full  and  proceeding  to  the  point  of  final  disposal, 
thus  avoiding  danger  from  having  the  dust  blown  about  by  the  wind. 


Fig.  129. — Can  or  Bag  Carrier. 

The  street  refuse  is  dumped  into  the  wagons  from  the  cans,  or 
is  shoveled  into  them  by  hand  from  the  piles.  In  the  latter  case,  it  is 
important  to  have  the  collecting  wagon  follow  the  sweeper  as  soon  as 
practicable,  so  that  the  piled  material  will  not  be  scattered  by  wheels 
passing  over  them,  or  by  wind  and  rain. 

Mr.  Fetherston,  in  reporting  on  the  street  refuse  removal  of 
West  New  Brighton,  in  1912,  states  that  the  average  quantity  of 
street  sweepings  removed  by  each  unit  (cart  and  driver)  per  produc- 
tive working  day  was  14.1  cu.  yd.  A  test  of  the  collection  and  removal 
by  a  large  motor  truck  proved  that  there  was  no  economy  in  the 
power  truck  over  the  horse-drawn  vehicle,  as  the  number  of  stops  and 
the  time  required  to  load  the  truck  was  not  offset  by  the  gain  in  speed, 
due  to  the  length  of  haul  to  the  point  of  disposal.  It  is  stated,  how- 
ever, that  it  is  probable  that  a  power  truck  will  be  found  economical  in 
collecting  street  sweepings  which  are  to  be  gathered  from  a  large  terri- 
tory, where  speed  will  be  a  controlling  factor. 


602     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

3.  Time. — In  the  most  frequented  streets  of  large  cities  the  trash 
and  horse  droppings  should  be  picked  up  continuously,  by  a  section 
patrol,  and  deposited  in  cans,  as  is  customary,  especially  in  Europe. 
A  thorough  street  cleaning  on  busy  streets  can  bfe  done  best  at  hours 
of  least  traffic,  namely,  at  night  or  during  the  early  morning,  and  when 
machines  can  be  expeditiously  used  for  sweeping.  This  has  the  great 
advantage  of  obtaining  a  much  higher  degree  of  cleanliness  and  a  more 
economical  collection.  It  has  the  disadvantage  that  night  work  is  more 
expensive  and  often  not  as  thorough.  The  best  compromise  seems  to 
be  the  early  morning,  which  is  the  customary  time  in  many  cities. 

4.  Organization. — Whether  fine  and  coarse  rubbish  and  snow 
should  be  removed  by  contract  or  by  city  force  depends  on  local 
conditions.  Unquestionably,  it  would  be  best  and  cheapest  to  remove 
all  refuse  by  a  trained  city  force  of  men,  as  mostly  done  in  European 
cities;  but,  in  American  cities,  we  often  get  better  results,  both 
in  efficiency  and  cost,  if  some  of  the  materials,  particularly  the  larger 
quantities  of  snow,  are  removed,  under  rigid  specifications,  by  con- 
tract, and  under  a  sufficient  number  of  competent  and  faithful 
inspectors. 

For  the  ordinary  and  steady  work  of  street  refuse  collection,  it 
has  been  found  much  more  satisfactory,  as  well  as  less  expensive, 
to  have  a  permanent,  well-trained  corps  of  men  and  officers,  under  an 
efficient  organization,  rewarded  for  their  best  work,  and  pensioned 
after  long  and  faithful  service.  Streets  are  continually  open  to 
inspection,  and  the  citizens  are  given  great  satisfaction  when  seeing 
good  work  done. 

C.  FINAL  DISPOSAL. 

The  final  disposal  of  street  refuse  depends  somewhat  on  its  value; 
first,  as  manure,  when  applied  on  fields  either  directly  or  as  a  dilutant; 
secondly,  as  a  filling  material  on  low  land;  thirdly,  as  a  heat  producer 
when  incinerated;  and,  fourthly,  when,  as  snow,  it  is  dumped  at 
convenient  points.  In  all  cases  the  disposal  should  give  as  little 
offense  as  possible  to  sight  and  smell,  both  to  the  public  and  to  private 
citizens. 

1.  Fertilizer. — The  fertilizing  value  is  greatest  when  the  material 
is  chiefly  horse  manure,  collected  from  well-paved  streets  with  smooth 
surfaces,  and  kept  fairly  free  from  mineral  and  organic  matter  which  is 
resistant  to  decomposition.  The  use  of  automobiles  has  lately  increased 
to  such  an  extent  that  in  some  cities,  as  already  said,  the  quantity 
of  good  street  manure  has  become  very  small,  and  it  is  likely  to 
decrease  still  more. 


STREET  REFUSE  603 

To  ascertain  the  actual  value  of  the  street  refuse,  average  samples 
should  be  collected  and  analyzed.  To  be  worth  considering  at  all  as 
manure,  the  organic  matter  in  the  sweepings  should  be  more  than 
75%.  It  is  then  necessary  to  ascertain  the  cost  of  delivery  from  the 
collection  point  to  the  farms,  which  cost  determines  whether  this 
delivery  leads  to  the  most  economical  disposal,  or  whether  other 
satisfactory'  methods  of  disposal  would  cost  less. 

It  may  be  found  practicable  to  discharge  manure  at  intermediate 
points  and  to  convert  it  into  a  compost  to  be  sold  for  fertilizing. 
Such  a  process  might  be  advisable  at  times  when  manure  cannot  be 
placed  on  the  fields,  but  would  require  temporary  storage.  An  esti- 
mate of  cost  may  furnish  the  best  answer  as  to  whether  or  not  this 
is  economical. 

In  ascertaining  the  cost  of  delivery,  it  is  necessary  to  find  out 
whether  or  not  transfer  stations  are  required,  to  receive  the  collected 
sweepings  for  reloading  into  cars  to  be  taken  to  more  distant  places 
for  disposal. 

2.  Land-fill. — When  it  is  found  that  the  manurial  value  is  too 
small  to  merit  the  cost  of  its  delivery  to  farms,  and  that  there  is  an 
opportunity  to  dump  it  on  low  land  near  by  at  much  less  cost,  it  is 
necessary  to  determine  whether  such  filling  would  be  satisfactory. 
It  might  probably  be  satisfactory  when  the  putrescible  organic  matter 
is  less  than  about  5%  in  warm  or  10%  in  cold  climates.  Street 
sweepings  richer  than  this  in  manure,  and  when  dumped  alone, 
have  been  productive  of  bad  odors. 

In  New  York  City  the  sweepings  are  collected  together  with  ashes, 
but  are  only  about  one-fifth  as  great  in  quantity  as  the  ashes.  This 
mixture  prevents  putrescence,  and  land  properly  filled  with  such  a 
mixture  will  not  be  unsanitary  after  a  few  years.  It  is  always  well  to 
cover  such  fillings  with  a  layer  of  about  6  in.  of  earth.  In  estimating 
comparative  co^ts,  it  is  necessary  to  start  at  the  point  of  collection. 

3.  Incineracion. — If  an  incinerator  for  other  refuse  is  available, 
with  a  short  haul,  then,  to  reduce  the  length  of  haul,  and  the  cost  of 
collection,  it  is  practicable,  if  the  organic  matter  in  the  street  refuse 
is  greater  than  50%,  to  burn  the  sweepings  either  alone,  or  with 
rubbish,  or  with  garbage  and  rubbish. 

Whether  or  not  this  is  preferable  to  the  other  methods  mentioned 
can  be  decided  only  after  both  analy^jes  and  estimates  of  cost  have 
been  made,  including  the  cost  of  collection.  It  is  possible  that,  for 
the  central  portions  of  the  largest  cities,  this  method  of  disposing  of 
street  refuse  in  the  future  may  become  the  cheapest  one,  because 
the  expense  of  transportation  to  a  great  distance  becomes  high. 

If  collected  after  rainy  weather,  and  if  the  final  disposition  is 


604     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

incineration,  it  may  be  necessary,  and  may  even  be  economical,  to 
provide  for  some  means  of  draining  and  even  drying  the  refuse  before 
discharging  it  into  the  furnace.  This  may  be  done  by  temporary 
short  storage  under  cover,  and  perhaps  also  by  a  short-time  heating 
with  waste  heat  at  the  works. 

In  Frankfort  a/M.  street  sweepings  are  mixed  with  the  precipitated 
sewage  sludge  after  being  centrifuged,  and,  with  other  refuse,  are 
then  burned. 

4.  Dumping  Snow. — After  the  snow  has  been  shoveled  into  carts, 
it  is  taken  to  points  of  disposal  at  the  nearest  places  where  it  can  be 
dumped.     They  are  as  follows: 

(a)  Sewers  of  the  combined  system  which  are  sufficiently  large  to 
receive  a  certain  quantity  of  snow  and  to  float  it  to  the  outfall. 

The  snow  is  dumped  into  the  sewer  manholes,  care  being  taken 
to  arrange  the  dumping  so  that  no  clogging  occurs  in  the  sewers. 
This  is  the  least  expensive  disposal,  and  may  be  used  in  many  cities, 
under  proper  restriction,  and  particularly  when  the  sewers  discharge 
directly  into  watercourses.  It  is  not  practicable  to  use  the  rain- 
water drains  of  a  separate  system  for  this  purpose,  as  there  is  no  con- 
tinuous flow  of  water  in  them.  In  exceptional  cases,  however,  they 
can  be  used  when  there  is  a  heavy  thaw,  but  then  only  under  careful 
examination  of  the  water  temperature  of  the  slush  forming  in  the 
drain,  etc. 

(b)  Watercourses  that  are  large  enough  to  float  away  the  snow 
dumped  into  them  at  the  banks. 

(c)  Open  lots  and  any  near-by  territory  where  the  snow  can  be 
dumped  without  harmful  results,  and  where  it  can  await  a  gradual 
melting  away. 

There  will  rarely  be  any  expense  attached  to  the  disposal  of  snow 
other  than  that  of  collection. 

D.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

All  street  refuse  should  be  deposited  for  collection  in  piles,  bags, 
closed  cans,  or  covered  masonry  pits,  so  that  no  dust  will  arise,  and 
the  dirt  after  collection  will  not  again  be  scattered.  The  wagons 
should  be  loaded  so  that  only  a  minimum  of  dust  arises.  This  can  be 
done  by  using  proper  shovels  and  by  dumping  the  receptacles  care- 
fully. The  wagons  should  have  tight  or  canvas  covers  which  can  be 
opened  and  closed  easily.  In  some  cities  closed  filled  cans  are  placed 
on  the  wagon  and  empty  ones  left  in  their  places.  The  filled  cans 
should  be  light  enough  to  be  lifted  by  two  men  or  by  a  small  crane 
attached  to  the  wagon,  or  pushed  up  an  inclined  runway. 


STREET  REFUSE  605 

As  street  refuse  should  be  removed  as  often  as  required  to  secure 
the  desired  cleanliness,  crowded  streets  in  large  cities  should  be  cleaned 
daily.  The  best  time  for  collection  is  when  the  streets  are  least  used, 
namely,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  night,  and  early  in  the  morning  when 
machine  cleaning  also  becomes  practicable. 

Ordinances  to  prevent  the  littering  of  streets  should  be  enacted 
and  enforced. 

It  has  been  found  best,  both  in  America  and  Europe,  for  a  city  to 
have  its  own  organization  for  cleaning,  although  there  maj'  be  proper 
exceptions  to  this  rule,  such  as  the  collection  and  removal  of  snow  when 
it  falls  in  large  quantities  and  must  be  removed  quickly.  In  this 
case,  and  in  our  country,  contract  work  has  generally,  as  yet,  been 
found  better  and  cheaper. 

The  best  final  disposal  of  street  refuse  depends  on  its  composition 
and  the  distance  of  haul  necessary  for  its  disposal.  The  best  disposal 
of  street  sweepings,  if  economical  and  if  they  contain  sufficient  manure, 
is  for  fertilizing  purposes.  The  other  methods  are:  Dumping,  if  not 
objectionable,  and  incineration  if  combustible.  In  dumping  sweep- 
ings which  contain  more  than  5%  of  manure,  it  is  well  to  cover  them 
with  ashes  or  soil  to  prevent  fly  breeding. 

Snow,  up  to  a  quantity  when  clogging  would  begin,  can  be 
dumped  into  the  manholes  of  large  sewers  having  a  good  flow.  Other- 
wise, dumping  into  watercourses  and  on  open  lots  is  the  usual 
practice. 

A  careful  investigation  of  all  the  conditions,  together  with  esti- 
mates of  cost,  beginning  at  the  point  of  collection,  should  decide  the 
preference. 


CHAPTER   XVI 
NIGHT-SOIL  AND  DEAD  ANIMALS 

A.  NIGHT-SOIL 

Night-soil  is  the  name  given  to  excreta  when  separately  col- 
lected and  when  it  does  not  form  a  part  of  house  sewage.  It  originates 
chiefly  in  cesspools  at  buildings  in  those  parts  of  the  outlying  districts 
of  cities  into  which  sewers  have  not  yet  been  extended.  There  are 
large  numbers  of  cesspools  in  many  American  cities.  In  Danville, 
111.,  for  instance,  in  1916,  they  were  used  in  2500  out  of  7000  houses. 

Solid  fsecal  matter  consists  mostly  of  animal  nitrogenous  matter, 
partly  digested,  and  vegetable  non-nitrogenous  residues  of  the  food. 
Most  nitrogenous  matter  is  easily  liquefied,  and  most  vegetable 
matter  is  slow  in  dissolving.  Both  are  first  attacked  by  aerobic 
bacteria  and  later  by  anaerobic  bacteria,  which  slowly  putrefy  the 
mass  and  deposit  black  sludge. 

Night-soil  is  similar  to  sewage  sludge,  but  rather  more  liquid,  and, 
as  already  mentioned  in  Chapter  II,  is  pumped  or  dipped  from  the 
cesspools  into  water-tight  wagons,  or  collected  from  earth  closets. 

It  is  very  seldom  that  the  actual  quantity  of  night-soil  is  recorded. 
The  quantity  collected  in  Winnipeg  in  the  years  1914  to  1918,  inclu- 
sive, is  shown  in  Table  180.  In  each  locality  it  depends  on  the  num- 
ber, size,  and  tightness  of  the  cesspools,  the  frequency  of  emptj'-ing, 
and  the  extent  of  the  sewer  system.  The  house  treatment  of  night- 
soil  and  dead  animals  has  been  discussed  in  Chapter  II. 

1.  Collection, — Night-soil  is  generally  collected  by  private  con- 
cerns, licensed  by  the  city,  which  has  regulations  controlling  their 
work.  The  collection  is  usually  made  separately,  the  night-soil  not 
being  mixed  with  any  other  refuse.  The  wagons  used  for  this  purpose 
are  of  various  kinds,  and  some  of  them  are  of  satisfactory  design. 

In  Atlanta,  the  night-soil  is  collected  by  the  City.  A  special  tank 
wagon,  designed  by  Mr.  John  Jentzen,  Chief  of  the  Sanitary  Depart- 
ment, is  shown  in  Fig.  130.  The  container  is  a  large  tank  similar  to 
that  carried  by  a  sprinkling  wagon.  The  night-soil  is  pumped  to 
the  tank  through  a  manhole  on  top.     When  the  wagon  is  to  be  emp- 

606 


NWiIT-SOIL  AND  DEAD  ANIMALS 


607 


tied,  the  manhole  covers  are  bolted  in  place  and  a  4-in.  outlet  in  the 
bottom  is  connected  to  the  sewer.  Water  under  pressure  is  then 
allowed  to  enter  the  upper  inlet,  and  this  flushes  the  night-soil  into 
the  sewer  and  leaves  the  tank  clean. 


TABLE  180. — Night-soil  Collected  in  Winnipeg,  Man., 
IN  THE  Years  1914  to  1918,  Inclusive 


Year 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

Population  from 

which  collections 

were  made: 

203,255 

201.981 

200,090 

182,848 

183,595 

Weight, 
in  pounds 

Weight, 
in  pounds 

Weight, 
in  pounds 

Weight, 
in  pounds 

Weight,, 
in  pounds 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

201,000 
207,155 
200,145 
481,750 
598,875 
503,795 
937,515 
665,175 
670,540 
561,475 
332,590 
279,375 

290,000 
260,600 
308,276 
329,375 
247,304 
168,700 
170,000 
162,700 
162,700 
162,700 
169,208 
169,208 

136,668 
162,700 
178,200 
168,000 
156,000 
171,600 
162,500 
171,600 
170,000 
165,000 
156,000 
155,000 

145,200 
133,000 
216,000 
192,000 
182,000 
187,200 
208,000 
197,600 
187,200 
208,000 
197,600 
200,000 

208,000 
184,000 
199,500 
208,000 
79,000 
180,000 
192,000 
183,300 
192,000 
196,800 
200,000 
184,000 

July 

August 

September.. . . 

October 

November .... 
December.  .  .  . 

Totals 

5,639,390 

2,600,771 

1,953,268 

2,253,800 

2,206,600 

In  cleaning  cesspools,  bricks  and  other  debris  are  sometimes 
removed  with  the  night-soil.  Care  must  be  taken  not  to  allow  such 
debris  to  clog  the  outlet.  A  basket  screen  hung  in  the  manhole  has 
been  used  to  prevent  this  occurrence. 

Such  "  odorless  excavators  "  are  used  in  many  cities.  In  Kansas 
City  the  cost  of  cleaning  cesspools  and  delivering  the  night-soil  at 
the  Missouri  River,  in  1914,  was  $8  for  a  load  consisting  of  from  35  to  40 
cu.  ft.;   and  one  cesspool  generally  holds  from  two  to  three  loads. 

Night-soil  can  be  disinfected,  and  fly  breeding  prevented,  by  a 
cresol  solution,  dilute  caustic,  gas-house  waste,  kerosene  oil,  or  by 
sawdust. 


608     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


NIGHT-SOIL  AND  DEAD  ANIMALS  609 

In  England,  formerly,  the  pail  or  tub  system  was  commonly  used 
for  collecting  excrementitious  matter.  A  pail  was  placed  under  the 
privy  seat,  and,  when  full,  was  replaced  by  an  empty  one.  In  1884 
there  were  about  40,000  pails  in  Birmingham  for  a  population  of 
250,000.     At  best,  it  was  an  offensive  method,  and  is  now  rarely  used. 

A  better  system,  still  used  in  many  places,  is  the  earth  closet, 
where  finely  sifted  earth  or  clay,  ashes,  or  charcoal  were  stored  above 
the  closet,  a  certain  quantity  being  caused  to  spread  over  a  dejection 
by  using  a  pull.  From  2^  to  3  lb.  of  dry  earth,  less  ashes,  or  still  less 
charcoal  (about  one-quarter  of  the  above  quantity)  are  sufficient  to 
remove  permanently  all  odors  from  an  average  dejection  of  faeces 
and  urine.  The  resulting  material  is  a  good  fertilizer.  Ashes  are 
not  as  valuable,  in  this  respect,  as  either  clay  or  charcoal. 

In  Paris  and  in  other  large  continental  European  cities,  night-soil, 
when  collected  in  the  absence  of  sewers,  is  temporarily  stored  in  cess- 
pools or  in  strong  wooden  casks  (fosses  mobiles)  containing  from  4  to  5 
cu.  ft.  The  contents  of  cesspools  are  pumped  into  cylindrical  iron 
carts,  containing  from  70  to  140  cu.  ft.,  which  are  tightly  covered. 
They,  and  also  the  wooden  casks,  are  taken  to  places  outside  the  city 
where  the  contents  are  spread  on  land  as  a  fertilizer,  or  are  taken 
to  depots  where  they  are  converted  into  poudrette.  The  collections 
are  made  at  brief  intervals — several  times  a  month — and  are  generally 
very  regular;  the  containers  are  well  cleansed  before  they  are  used 
again. 

2.  Disposal. — Night-soil  is  disposed  of  in  several  ways.  In  Kan- 
sas City  it  is  dumped  directly  into  the  Missouri  River.  It  should  not 
be  dumped  at  the  shore,  but  into  the  current.  In  Atlanta,  Columbus, 
Pittsburgh,  and  many  other  cities  it  is  conducted  through  a  large 
hose  directly  into  large  sewers  through  street  manholes.  This  is  the 
proper  place  for  night-soil,  if  not  used  as  a  fertilizer,  because  the 
sewers,  in  the  future,  will  receive  the  sewage  from  the  same  houses 
from  which  at  present  night-soil  is  removed  separately. 

In  some  cities  a  special  building  is  provided  where  the  wagons  enter 
and  dump  into  a  branch  sewer  leading  to  the  street  main  sewer,  to  be 
followed  by  a  good  flush  of  water  to  cleanse  the  branch.  With  proper 
equipment  and  good  service,  this  method  of  disposal  is  unobjectionable. 

In  Winnipeg,  the  night-soil  is  discharged  into  the  sewers  during  the 
summer,  but  during  the  winter  it  is  spread  on  agricultural  lands  out- 
side of  the  city. 

In  a  few  places  it  is  burnt  in  furnaces  with  the  garbage;  in  a  few 
others  it  is  plowed  into  the  earth  on  fields. 

At  Montgomery,  Ala.,  there  is  a  station,*  for  disposing  of  can- 

•  Described  and  illustrated  in  The  Municipal  Journal  and  Public  Works,  Aug.  9,  1919. 


610     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

collected  excrement  or  night-soil,  designed  by  E.  B.  Johnson,  Chief 
Sanitary  Inspector  of  the  U.  S.  Public  Health  Service. 

In  establishing  such  a  station,  its  location  was  of  first  importance, 
as  objectionable  odors  would  become  a  source  of  complaint  by  near-by 
residents.  The  proper  equipment  and  management  are  of  equal 
importance,  as  the  building  and  the  persons  of  the  attendants  must 
be  kept  clean. 

A  plot  of  ground,  150  by  100  ft.,  on  a  bluff  overlooking  the  Alabama 
River,  was  selected.  The  nearest  dwellings  are  about  300  ft.  distant, 
and  not  more  than  twenty  are  within  700  ft.  Within  a  radius  of  1^ 
miles  there  are  3300  privies  in  which  3900  cans  are  used.  The  station 
was  built  in  the  center  of  the  plot,  thus  securing  free  ventilation  and  a 
reasonably  clear  zone  between  it  and  adjoining  property. 

The  platform  space  was  designed  to  accommodate  700  cans  a  day, 
not  more  than  200  to  arrive  at  one  time.  An  allowance  for  extension 
was  based  on  the  possibility  of  480  arriving  at  the  same  time,  so  that 
the  capacity  would  be  more  than  10,000  cans  a  week.  As  the  cans  are 
changed  once  a  week,  the  station  could  dispose  of  the  excreta  of 
two  and  one-half  times  as  many  houses  as  are  in  the  present 
territory. 

To  provide  for  480  cans  at  one  time,  a  30  by  7-ft.  unloading  plat- 
form was  built,  and  a  loading  platform  of  the  same  size  on  the  opposite 
side  for  empty  cans.  A  width  of  6  ft.,  between  the  platforms,  was 
allowed  as  a  working  space.  Fig.  131  is  a  plan  and  section  of  the  sta- 
tion. Brick  piers,  5  ft.  apart  and  of  sufficient  height  to  bring  the 
floor  from  2^  to  3  ft.  above  the  driveway,  support  the  structure. 
The  stringers  are  4  by  6-in.  timbers  and  the  flooring  is  of  2-in  boards. 
The  sides  and  roof  are  covered  with  corrugated  galvanized  iron. 

As  originally  designed,  only  the  central  part,  6  ft.  wide,  was  roofed. 
Experience  has  shown  that  it  would  have  been  better  to  extend  the 
roof  over  the  entire  platform  and  enclose  the  sides  with  rolling  or 
sliding  doors,  in  order  to  shelter  the  attendants  and  protect  the  equip- 
ment against  theft  and  depredation.  It  is  also  proposed  to  provide 
future  stations  with  a  concrete  floor  and  a  central  drain.  There  is  a 
cinder  roadbed  from  the  street  to  the  station  and  around  it. 

Three  concrete  hoppers  receive  the  contents  of  the  cans.  Each  is 
shaped  like  an  inverted  frustum  of  a  cone,  and  has  a  lip  extending 
12  in.  toward  the  unloading  platform.  The  lip  is  U-shaped,  and  the 
lowest  part,  inside,  is  about  7  in.  below  the  top.  On  the  inner  wall 
of  the  hopper,  and  level  with  the  inside  bottom  of  the  lip,  four  pieces 
of  angle-iron  are  placed  at  equidistant  points.  These  are  bolted  to 
the  hopper  so  that  their  edges  project  into  it  and  form  a  support  for 
the  can.     The  diameter  of  the  hopper  at  this  level  is  17  in.  and  that  of 


NIGHT-SOIL  AND  DEAD  ANIMALS 


611 


the  cans  is  15  in.     The  hopper  is  connected  with  an  8-in.  sewer  which 
discharges  into  the  current  of  the  Alabama  River. 

The  cans  are  washed  by  a  ^-in.  pipe  which  projects  into  the  hopper 
and  rises  2  in.  above  the  angle-iron  supports.  The  flow  from  this  pipe 
is  controlled  by  a  Titan  valve  jusL  outside  the  hopper.     This  valve  is 


Galvanized 


f  f 

< 20 ^ 

1,                       1 

O 

■| 

. 

1 

2  tt 

^        J 

°  A 

5  Sj- 

1      Water 

a  7^ 

~ 

p.      c 

5' 

3'    ^1 

E3 

G 

m     5| 

B 

o 

ft  1 

O 

3 

j 

, 

C   1 

1^ 

f- 

1       m 

c 

?      ►o 

-■ 

atfo 

N 

§] 

o 

1            cbO 

3        |S 

I 

1       *^ 

D 

> 

2 

Sewer         ■■  ^ 

1          n 

1       3 

ffi 

\ 

^mT 

SJ^ 

,, 

.  -s 7^— —4^  -  -6'-'^ 

»^: 7-^-^ 

i 

Fig.  131. — Plan  and  Section  of  Station  for  Disposal  of  Night-soil, 

and  Section  of  Hopper,  Montgomery,  Ala. 

(From  Municipal  Journal  and  Public  Works,  Aug.  9,  1919.) 

kept  closed  by  a  spring,  and  is  opened  by  a  lever  and  kept  open  during 
washing  by  foot  pressure  of  the  operator  or  by  a  weight  placed  on  the 
lever.  The  washing  pipe  is  connected  to  a  2-in.  pipe  fed  by  the  city 
mains. 

The  full  cans  are  unloaded  from  the  wagon  by  the  driver  and 
two  helpers.  The  wagon  is  then  driven  to  the  loading  platform  and 
receives  a  load  of  empty  cans.  The  handling  and  cleaning  of  the  cans 
is  done  by  two  men  under  the  direction  of  a  foreman.     One  man 


612     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

operates  on  the  "  soiled  can  "  side,  placing  the  cans  in  the  hoppers,  and 
the  other  man,  working  on  the  opposite  side,  removes  and  places 
them  on  the  "  clean  can  "  platform.  The  full  can  is  inverted  over  the 
hopper,  thus  discharging  the  greater  part  of  the  contents.  Then  the 
water  is  turned  on  and  allowed  to  flow  for  from  40  to  60  sec.  This  is 
nearly  always  sufficient  to  clean  the  can,  as  only  in  about  one  case  in  a 
hundred  do  fseces  adhere  to  the  inner  surface  after  washing.  In  such 
cases  this  material  is  loosened  by  applying  a  solution  of  lye  with 
a  mop.  The  lye  is  reported  to  have  had  no  bad  effect  on  the  gal- 
vanized  iron. 

In  other  stations,  the  cans,  after  mechanical  cleaning,  are  immersed 
in  a  disinfecting  solution  (such  as  1-50  compound  cresol),  leaving 
about  a  pint  of  the  solution  in  the  can. 

The  covers  of  the  cans  are  washed  on  the  platform  with  a  hose. 

There  is  onh^  a  slight  odor  at  the  station,  as  the  cans  are  kept 
tightly  covered  until  they  are  placed  in  the  washing  hoppers. 

The  station  was  built  during  the  war,  when  the  cost  of  labor  and 
materials  was  high.     The  items  of  expense  connected  with  its  erection 
and  operation  were  as  follows 
Cost  of  construction : 

Ground $1500.00 

Station  and  hoppers 768 .  40 

Sewer,  water  pipes,  and  fixtures 931 .  60 

Total $3200.00 

Cost  of  operation  per  day: 

Foreman $4 .  50 

Two  laborers,  at  $2.60 '. 5.00 

Total $9.50 

This  force  handles  700  cans  daily,  and,  if  necessary,  it  could  care  for 
1200  cans  in  the  same  time. 

B.  DEAD  ANIMALS 

The  house  treatment  of  dead  animals  has  been  discussed  in  Chap- 
ter II.  In  large  cities  the  collection  and  disposal  of  dead  animals  is  a 
proper  function  of  the  municipality.  Many  small  dead  animals  are 
thrown  into  the  street  for  the  city  scavenger  to  pick  up.  This  should 
not  be  done,  except  with  the  permission  of  the  poUce,  and  on  immediate 
notification  of  the  proper  department.  The  work  of  collection  is  done 
generally  by  city  teams,  though  sometimes  by  licensed  scavengers  or 
by  a  general  contractor.  Dead  animals  larger  than  cats  and  small 
dogs  should  always  be  collected  separately,  and  not  mixed  with  refuse. 


NIGHT-SOIL  AND  DEAD  ANIMALS 


613 


Trucks  for  the  removal  of  dead  horses  should  be  hung  low,  to  avoid 
an  excessive  lift. 

In  Chicago,  a  private  company,  operating  under  a  five-year  con- 
tract, collects  and  disposes  of  dead  animals.  The  City  is  paid  a 
nominal  sum  per  year  for  the  privilege.  The  contractor  agrees  to 
remove  within  twelve  hours  all  dead  animals  from  all  streets,  alleys, 
and  the  river,  except  in  the  stock  yards  district,  and  to  dispose  of 
them  at  least  3  miles  outside  of  the  city  limits.  A  summary  of  the 
work  done  during  the  12  months  ending,  August  1,  1913,  is  as  follows: 


Item 

Average  weight 
per  animal 

Total  weight 

Horses 

1300  lb. 

25  1b. 

5  1b. 

100  lb. 

9,253  lb. 

20,782  lb. 

3,603  lb. 

448  lb. 

Dogs 

Cats  

Miscellaneous 

Table  181  shows  the  number  and  kind  of  dead  animals  collected 
in  Washington,  D.  C,  from  1906  to  1908  and  1915  to  1918.    The  coUec- 

TABLE  181. — Dead  Animals  Collected  and  Removed 
IN  Washington,  D.  C,  in  1906,  1907,  1908,  and  1915,  1916,  1917,  and  1918 


Year 

Horses 

Mules 

Cows 

Goats 

Dogs 

Cats 

Chickens 

Rats 

Miscel- 
laneous 

1906 

417 

42 

4471 

5,783 

367 

775 

120 

1907 

649 

54 

4899 

7,574 

488 

1065 

163 

1908 

614 

67 

7666 

9,058 

380 

1209 

187 

1915 

565 

23 

17 

23 

4953 

14,362 

195 

311 

113 

1916 

578 

14 

15 

22 

5368 

16,093 

151 

333 

150 

1917 

576 

27 

12 

4 

5724 

17,469 

184 

424 

142 

1918 

616 

29 

15 

6 

7271 

14,401 

255 

172 

126 

tion  and  disposal  is  by  contract.  It  has  been  recommended  that  in 
the  future  all  dead  animals  be  collected  in  closed  vehicles  so  that 
they  may  be  entirely  out  of  sight  while  passing  through  the  streets. 

The  weight  of  dead  dogs  collected  in  Winnipeg,  from  1911  to  1914, 
as  shown  by  the  annual  reports  of  the  Department  of  Public  Health, 
was  as  follows: 

1911 18,840  lb. 

1912 27,080   lb. 

1913 40,950  lb. 

1914 36,150  lb. 


614     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


The  number  of  dead  animals  reported  as  collected  in  Milwaukee 
and  Columbus  for  1913  to  1916  was  as  follows: 


Milwaukee 

Columbus 

1913 
1914 
1915 
1916 

5133 
4914 
4769 

287 
183 
233 
157 

Table  182  shows  the  number  of  small  dead  animals  collected  and 
disposed  of  in  Milwaukee  in  1919,  and  the  cost  thereof. 

TABLE    182. — Collection    op    Small    Dead    Animals 
IN  Milwaukee,  in  1919 


Month 

Small  animals 

Cost  of  collection 

January 

February 

March 

224 
218 
248 
294 
294 
406 
398 
392 
320 
283 
243 
216 

$130.00 
120.00 
137.50 
130.00 
135.00 
195.00 
265.00 
260.00 
260.00 
135.00 
125.00 
135.00 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Totals 

3536 

$2027.50 

Average  cost  of  collecting  each  animal,  $0.57. 

Dead  animals  are  almost  always  disposed  of  at  private  rendering 
plants,  even  in  the  smaller  cities.  The  hides  are  removed  from  the 
larger  animals,  and  the  carcasses  are  treated  to  secure  the  grease  and 
tankage.  In  Milwaukee,  and  generally  in  other  places  where  there 
are  incinerators,  the  smaller  dead  animals  are  burned  with  the  mixed 
refuse.  In  1918  the  average  cost  of  collecting  small  dead  animals  in 
Milwaukee  was  $0.47  each. 

The  collection  and  disposal  of  dead  animals  requires  considerable 
attention,  in  order  to  avoid  nuisance  and  danger  to  health. 

In  Europe,  and  particularly  on  the  continent,  the  collection  and 
disposal  of  dead  animals  has  received  much  attention,  both  by  gov- 


NIGHT-SOIL  AND  DEAD  ANIMALS  615 

ernments  and  individuals,  and  in  the  interests  of  sanitation,  agri- 
culture, and  commercial  products.  The  following  gives  a  description 
of  a  method  of  collection. 

Suitable  vehicles,  formerly  horse-drawn,  now  motor  trucks,  collect 
even  partly  decomposed  bodies  satisfactorily,  and  on  poor  roads. 
The  wagon  bodies  are  tightly  closed,  so  that  neither  air  nor  liquids 
can  escape.  Zinc  linings  were  tried,  but  the  jarring  frequently 
caused  cracks  and  rupture.  Sheet-iron,  welded  at  the  joints,  resting 
on  a  wooden  floor  and  supported  by  a  wooden  frame,  proved  to  be 
better.  Still  better  was  a  design,  by  Kunz,  completely  of  sheet-iron, 
the  lower  third  of  which  was  a  tray  having  a  round  bottom  which  could 
be  drawn  out  at  the  rear,  the  upper  two-thirds  being  firmly  attached 
to  the  chassis.  Dead  animals  could  be  readily  put  into  the  tray,  lifted 
by  a  winch,  and  pulled  into  the  wagon.  The  capacity  of  the  wagons 
is  from  two  to  three  tons.  To  reduce  jarring,  wheels  of  large  diam- 
eter were  placed  under  the  center  of  the  body  and  smaller  wheels  in 
front. 

The  oldest  method  of  disposal — still  much  used — is  burial,  but, 
for  large  animals,  there  must  be  a  deep,  and  not  a  shallow,  burial, 
in  order  to  destroy  all  pathogenic  bacteria  effectively.  Another  com- 
mon method  was  a  treatment  with  strong  mineral  acids,  such  as  con- 
centrated sulphuric  acid.  This  was  applied  for  twenty-four  hours  and 
the  resulting  mass  was  then  mixed  with  bone  meal.  When  dry  it  is  a 
good  fertilizer,  and  contains  as  much  as  4%  of  nitrogen  and  16%  of 
phosphoric  acid.  This  process,  developed  by  Girard,  has  been  used  in 
France. 

The  most  sanitary  disposal,  and  a  necessary  one  in  the  case  of  dis- 
eased animals,  is  by  incineration.  On  account  of  the  odors  arising, 
the  primitive  burning  in  the  open  field  has  been  supplanted  by  portable 
crematories  or  fixed  incinerators.  This  method  does  not  utilize  the 
material,  as  th.e  ashes  have  no  high  manurial  value.  The  portable 
crematory  consists  of  a  horizontal  wrought-iron  cylinder  lined  with 
fire-brick  and  mounted  on  four  wheels.  Between  the  rear  wheels 
there  is  a  fire-box,  separated  from  the  cylinder  by  a  grate.  The  dead 
animal  is  lifted  in  at  the  front  end,  under  the  stack,  and  the  cylinder 
is  then  tightly  closed.  A  horse  is  cremated  in  six  hours  with  500  lb. 
of  pine  wood,  and  without  odor.  An  advantage  of  this  apparatus 
is  that  it  can  be  taken  to  the  dead  body,  and  avoids  taking  the  latter, 
■when  exposed,  through  the  streets,  which  is  inadvisable  if  death  was 
caused  by  an  infectious  disease. 

Fixed  incinerators,  designed  especially  for  burning  dead  animals, 
are  not  usually  built  in  American  cities,  but  incinerators  for  general 
refuse  are  usually  arranged  to  burn  also  large  animals.     Care  must  be 


616     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

taken  in  this  case  to  place  the  body  in  the  combustion  chamber,  where 
the  heat  is  highest  and  all  organic  gases  can  be  destroyed. 

The  common  method  for  disposing  of  dead  animals  in  European 
cities  is  to  reduce  them  to  grease  and  tankage,  which  are  both  salable. 
On  the  continent,  Podewils  has  devised  the  best  apparatus;  the  Grove 
system  was  less  satisfactory.  Cooking  with  steam  under  pressure  is 
used  to  separate  the  grease  from  the  water  and  other  matters.  The 
grease  is  drawn  off,  the  water  is  evaporated,  and  the  remaining  gela- 
tinous material,  or  glue,  is  sold,  or  is  mixed  either  with  the  tankage  or 
with  the  bone  meal  and  sold  as  fertilizer. 

The  waste  water,  however,  has  generally  been  turned  into  the 
sewer,  as  evaporation  is  expensive.  It  is  sometimes  advisable  to  have 
prior  sedimentation.  Where  there  were  no  sewers,  a  purification  by 
intermittent  land  filtration  has  solved  the  problem. 

The  tankage  is  sometimes  ground  to  a  meal  and,  due  to  its  con- 
tents, has  served  successfully  as  a  food  for  hogs.  Its  value  for  this 
purpose  has  been  estimated  in  Europe  at  $2  per  100  lb.,  whereas  it  has 
brought  less  than  half  of  this  price  as  a  fertilizer.  The  grease  has  been 
sold  at  $5  per  100  lb.,  and  is  used  as  a  lubricant,  or  in  soap  making. 
The  glue  is  not  salable  as  such,  because  it  has  been  subjected  to  a 
high  degree  of  heat.     It  has  been  sold,  however,  at  $1  per  100  lb. 

The  largest  recent  municipal  establishment  for  disposing  of  dead 
animals  is  in  Ruednitz,  near  Berlin.  It  is  said  to  be  the  largest  and 
best  arranged  on  the  continent.  The  works  are  very  carefully 
designed  to  prevent  odors  and  avoid  all  possible  contact  between 
the  dead  raw  material  and  the  products.  The  former  are  delivered 
at  one  side  of  the  building  and  the  products  are  removed  from  the 
other,  the  two  parts  of  the  building  being  separated  by  a  wall  having 
a  few  tightly  closed  doors,  and  the  v/orkmen  are  not  allowed  to  pass 
from  one  part  to  the  other.  All  vehicles  are  thoroughly  disinfected 
before  they  leave  the  premises. 

The  ordinary  dead  bodies  are  skinned  and  then  cut  into  pieces. 
Skins,  horns,  and  hoofs  are  passed  into  the  other  part  of  the  building, 
there  to  be  treated  and  made  ready  for  sale.  The  other  material  is 
treated  by  boiling,  which  separates  the  mass  into  grease,  bones,  liquids, 
and  tankage,  as  in  garbage  reduction  works.  The  grease  is  drawn 
off  into  barrels  and  sold.  The  tankage  is  ground  fine  and  sold  as  a 
fertilizer,  and  sometimes  for  feeding. 

Adjoining  the  building  are  the  dwellings  of  the  workmen,  with 
hot  and  cold  water  bathing  facilities,  dining  rooms,  etc.,  and  with 
good  ventilation  and  electric  lights. 

Diseased  bodies  and  those  partly  decomposed  are  treated  differently 
in  a  separate  part  of  the  building.     The  workmen  change  their  clothes 


NIGHT-SOIL  AND  DEAD  ANIMALS  61'. 

before  leaving  the  works.  Dissecting  rooms  are  provided,  and  a 
special  disposal  of  the  different  parts  is  ordered,  according  to  the  results 
of  examination. 

The  ordinance  permitting  the  erection  of  the  Ruednitz  establish- 
ment states  that  it  must  be  under  the  direction  of  a  veterinary  sur- 
geon. It  must  never  be  leased,  but  be  under  the  immediate  super- 
vision of  an  experienced  city  officer.  A  well-trained  corps  of  men  is  a 
further  condition  for  the  operation  of  the  plant.  About  thirty  men 
are  emjjloyed. 

C.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

Night-soil  requires  special  collection  and  treatment  when  it  does 
not  form  a  part  of  house  sewage  going  into  sewers.  It  is  collected,  in 
the  outlying  districts  having  no  sewers,  either  from  cesspools  or 
special  receptacles,  and  generally  by  private,  but  licensed,  concerns. 
Municipal  regulations,  carefully  drawn  up,  should  control  the  house 
treatment,  collection,  and  disposal. 

The  collections  are  made  at  stated  intervals,  in  wagons  specially 
designed  for  the  purpose,  and  usually  called  "  odorless  excavators." 
The  material  is  generally  pumped  into  them,  and  is  not  exposed  so 
that  it  emits  any  odor.  Cleanliness  in  all  parts  is  essential,  both  in  the 
house  treatment  and  the  collection. 

The  final  disposal  varies  in  different  cities  and  countries.  In  some 
American  cities  it  is  dumped  into  large  rivers,  because  this  is  most 
economical.  In  others.it  is  dumped  at  night  into  large  sewers  through 
their  manholes  as  a  thick  liquid.  Some  cities  have  it  spread  over 
agricultural  lands,  particularly  in  the  winter,  or  plowed  in,  or  burnt 
with  the  garbage.  In  Europe  night-soil  is  generally  converted  into 
poudrette  to  be  used  as  manure. 

Dead  animals  require  disinfection,  when  at  the  houses,  and  an  early 
removal  under  the  supervision  of  the  municipality,  which  must  be 
immediately  notified.  They  are  collected  by  the  city  or  its  licensed 
scavengers.  Small  animals,  as  rats  and  mice,  generally  go  into  the 
garbage.  Large  animals  are  collected  separately,  for  which  special 
vehicles  are  sometimes  provided.  These  are  generally  closed  so  that 
the  bodies  are  out  of  sight. 

The  disposal  is  generally  in  private  rendering  establishments,  the 
hides  being  sold  and  the  carcasses  reduced  to  secure  grease  and  tank- 
age.    Where  no  such  establishments  ex'st,  the  dead  bodies  are  buried. 


CHAPTER  XVII 
PROCEDURE   IN  SMALL  TOWNS  AND  VILLAGES 

In  very  small  communities,  with  populations  ranging  from  a  few 
hundred  persons  to  15,000  or  25,000,  the  refuse  disposal  problem 
generally  requires  a  different  solution  than  in  large  cities.  This  is 
apparent  from  a  brief  consideration  of  the  different  conditions. 
First,  there  are  different  types  of  small  communities.  There  is  the 
residential  town  contiguous  to  a  large  city,  forming  part  of  a  large 
metropolitan  district.  Such  a  town  may  be  used,  almost  wholly,  for 
residential  purposes,  and,  therefore,  it  may  be  difficult  to  find  a 
suitable  location  for  a  refuse  disposal  plant.  Another  type  is  the 
small  county  seat  in  the  midst  of  a  farming  district,  possessing  one  or 
more  small  industrial  plants  and  surrounded  with  large  open  spaces 
and  many  farms.  A  third  type  is  the  small  industrial  town,  through 
which  run  two  or  more  railroad  lines.  A  fourth  type  is  a  town  with 
a  low  valuation  of  its  property  and  a  consequent  shortage  of  public 
funds.  Some  of  these  characteristics  vary  also  with  the  climate,, 
topography,  soil,  and  other  conditions. 

A  small  community  has  generally  less  trouble  with  the  disposal  of 
its  solid  refuse  than  a  large  one,  because  the  quantities  to  be  dealt 
with  are  small;  the  distances  to  which  they  can  be  delivered  and 
satisfy  all  requirements  are  short;  the  necessity  for  a  general  system  of 
collection  and  disposal  is  less  serious;  and  it  is  practicable  in  many 
instances  to  allow  some  liberty  to  each  citizen  to  select  a  disposal  of 
his  refuse  most  satisfactory  to  himself, 

A.  TYPICAL  CONDITIONS 

Prior  to  the  establishment  of  any  general  collection  service,  it  is 
often  found  that  garbage  is  collected  by  one  or  more  private  scaven- 
gers, who  make  arrangements  with  each  household  and  dispose  of  the 
garbage  by  dumping  it  on  waste  land  without  proper  public  regulation, 
or  by  feeding  it  to  hogs.  Nuisances  often  result  in  both  cases.  Gen- 
erally,   the    cost    of    this    service    is   paid   by   each    customer,    the 

618 


COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  IN  SMALL  TOWNS         619 

monthly  charge  in  some  towns  in  Illinois  and  New  England  ranging 
from  $1  to  $4,  or  10  cents  per  can.  In  Decatur  (population,  40,000), 
the  charge  is  40  cents  per  month  per  family.     (1915.) 

It  has  been  found  that  in  some  communities  the  collection  is  from 
not  more  than  one-fourth  of  the  population.  The  cost  per  family  is 
therefore  sometimes  high,  and  covers  only  a  restricted  service.  In 
one  Illinois  city  of  3500  population,  where  garbage  collection  is  thus 
provided  for  about  25%  of  the  people,  the  annual  sum  paid  to  the 
scavengers  in  1916  was  about  $8000,  a  sum  nearly  sufficient  to  pay 
for  a  service  covering  the  whole  town  under  one  management. 

Too  often  there  is  no  regular  removal  of  rubbish,  or  even  of  tin 
cans.  Individuals  accumulate  their  rubbish  in  the  yards.  From 
time  to  time  it  is  hauled  to  vacant  lots,  where  the  papers  blow  about 
and  the  tin  cans  form  breeding  places  for  mosquitoes.  Both  papers 
and  tins  are  unsightly,  and  disfigure  the  neighborhood.  When  rub- 
bish accumulates  in  large  volume,  particularly  the  comparatively 
incombustible  portions,  such  as  glass,  crockery,  old  shoes,  etc.,  its 
disposal  becomes  a  burden  to  householders.  To  relieve  this  condi- 
tion, spring  clean-up  campaigns  have  been  organized;  but,  in  the 
absence  of  some  proper  system  of  disposal,  the  nuisance  is  often  only 
transferred  from  one  place  to  another. 

Ashes,  perhaps,  give  the  least  trouble  in  a  small  town,  because 
they  make  a  good  fill  and  can  be  used  for  extending  roadways  into 
undeveloped  districts.  Promiscuous  dumping  into  ravines  or  woods 
has  sometimes  marred  some  of  the  natural  beauties  of  the  town. 

The  disposal  of  manure  and  night-soil  are  allied  problems,  and  in 
small  towns  may  not  be  as  difficult  of  solution  as  the  disposal  of 
garbage  and  rubbish;  but  any  method  which  reduces  the  number  of 
flies  and  thereby  the  fly-borne  diseases  (Chapter  XIV),  is  as  important 
as  in  large  cities. 

B.  STATE  LAWS 

A  number  of  the  officials  of  State  Boards  of  Health  have  come 
to  realize  the  need  of  better  refuse  disposal  in  small  towns,  and  in  some 
States  laws  have  been  enacted  to  enable  towns  to  levy  a  special  tax  for 
this  purpose,  thus  providing  the  necessary  funds.  The  recent  Illinois 
law  for  this  purpose  is  as  follows: 

"A  Bill 

"  For  an  act  to  authorize  cities  and  villages  having  a  population  of  less 
than  100,000  to  levy  a  tax  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  and  disposing  of 
garbage. 

"  Section  1. — Be  it  enacted  by  the  People  of  the  State  of  Illinois  repre- 


620     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

sented  in  the  General  Assembly:  That  the  city  council  of  each  incorporated 
city  in  this  State,  whether  organized  under  the  general  law  or  special  charter, 
having  a  population  of  less  than  100,000,  and  the  president  and  board  of 
trustees  of  each  village  in  the  State  of  Illinois  having  a  population  of  less  than 
100,000,  shall  have  the  power  to  establish  and  maintain  garbage  systems  or 
plants  for  the  collection  and  disposal  of  garbage  in  such  city  or  vUlage,  and  may 
levy  a  tax  not  to  exceed  two  mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable  property  in  the 
city  or  village,  according  to  the  valuation  of  the  same  as  made  for  the  purpose 
of  State  and  county  taxation  by  the  last  assessment,  in  said  city  or  village 
for  such  purposes.  Said  annual  garbage  tax  shall  be  in  addition  to  the  amount 
authorized  to  be  levied  for  general  purposes  as  provided  by  Section  1  of  Article  S 
of  '  An  Act  for  the  Incorporation  of  Cities  and  Villages  '  approved  April  10, 
1872,  and  all  amendments  thereto." 

In  a  typical  Illinois  city  of  15,000  people,  the  tax  levy  has  produced 
about  $8000  per  year.     (1915.) 

C.  COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL 

To  improve  objectionable  conditions  in  small  communities  requires 
sufficient  funds,  an  organization,  and  places  for  proper  disposal. 
Proper  organizations  and  funds  are  often  lacking,  as  well  as  a  plan  for 
progressive  development  with  full  utilization  of  the  existing  natural 
advantages.  In  reference  to  this,  it  is  important  to  note  that  some- 
times, in  very  small  towns,  sanitary  activity  is  not  far  developed. 
There  may  be  no  full-time  health  officer;  and  food,  milk,  and  water 
inspection  may  be  neglected.  There  may  be  a  need  for  water  filtra- 
tion or  sewage  disposal,  or  even  the  construction  of  sewers;  and  the 
merits  and  costs  of  these  more  important  improvements  should  be 
considered  in  advance  of  refuse  disposal.  Yet  the  latter  should  always 
be  kept  in  mind,  and  a  proper  balance  of  the  funds  of  the  community 
should  be  preserved  and  expended  for  the  solution  of  the  refuse 
problem  when  it  may  become  desirable. 

As  soon  as  this  problem  demands  serious  consideration,  com- 
petent parties  should  begin  to  investigate  the  three  general  features: 
house  treatment,  collection,  and  final  disposal.  For  the  considera- 
tion of  details,  reference  should  be  made  to  the  respective  subjects 
elaborated  in  the  previous  chapters. 

It  is  pertinent  here,  first,  to  mention  particularly  those  collection 
and  disposal  procedures  which  are  adapted  especially  for  small  towns. 
The  requirements  for  house  treatment  will  be  referred  to  later. 

Of  first  importance  is  a  general  comprehensive  collection  of  gar- 
bage at  regular  intervals,  about  twice  a  week,  but  in  summer  daily  if 
practicable,  particularly  in  the  warmer  climates.  Covered  wagons  of 
good  design  and  proper  size  should  be  provided,  washed  daily,  painted 


COLLECTION  AND  DIHPOSAL  IN  SMALL  TOWNS  621 

frequently,  and  kept  iu  good  repair.  A  capacity  of  from  27  to  54  cu. 
ft.  is  generally  suitable,  although  special  conditions  may  require  larger 
wagons.  It  would  be  of  advantage  to  have  the  collectors  uniformed, 
either  in  duck  or  khaki. 

The  collection  of  garbage  should  be  done  preferably  by  the  town, 
and  paid  for  out  of  the  general  fund,  or  by  a  special  tax,  and  the  ser- 
vice should  include  practically  every  house.  If  the  collection  is  left 
to  individual  agreement,  on  monthly  payments,  generally  too  few  are 
ready  to  pay  for  such  a  service.  In  some  towns  the  work  is  let  to  a 
contractor  on  the  basis  of  a  monthly  payment  for  collecting  from  the 
whole  town.  With  a  conscientious  contractor,  and  sufficient  inspec- 
tion on  the  part  of  town  officials,  this  arrangement  has  proved  satis- 
factory. Generally  speaking,  however,  collection  by  contract  is  only 
advisable  when  there  is  no  official  available  to  take  charge  of  a 
management  by  force  account.  If  the  work  is  done  municipally,  it 
should  be  directed  by  a  competent  superintendent  (town  manager,  or 
superintendent  of  streets,  or  commissioner  of  public  works).  The 
horses  may  be  owned  and  stabled  by  the  town,  or  hired  by  the  month. 
The  wagons,  however,  should  preferably  be  provided  and  owned 
by  the  town.     (Chapter  III.) 

Of  next  importance  is  a  suitable  and  economical  disposal  of  the 
garbage.  The  methods  usually  available  for  small  towns  are  feeding 
to  hogs,  shallow  burial,  or  incineration.  Each  of  these  methods  is 
in  successful  use  in  a  number  of  towns. 

If  a  farm  in  a  suitable  locality  is  available,  garbage  disposal  by 
feeding  to  hogs  is  not  only  the  best  but  also  the  least  costly  method. 
Garbage  produced  in  small  communities  can  almost  always  be  gotten 
rid  of  in  this  way,  and  farmers  are  generally  willing  to  collect  and 
sometimes  even  to  pay  for  it.     (Chapter  VIII.) 

When  there  is  no  public  collection,  and  garbage  cannot  be  disposed 
of  by  feeding  or  burial,  there  is  still  a  method  left  to  the  householder, 
viz.,  by  burning  it  in  the  house.  To  burn  it  in  the  kitchen  stove,  as 
often  done,  is  usually  offensive.  A  much  better  way  is  to  put  it  into  a 
specially  made  apparatus,  forming  a  part  of  the  flue  above  the  kitchen 
range,  and  allow  it  to  be  slowly  dried,  carbonized,  and  then  charred, 
when  it  can  be  taken  out  and  used  as  fuel  in  the  range.     See  page  90. 

Shallow  burial  is  not  costly  where  suitable  soil  can  be  had.  It 
usually  calls  for  the  lowest  initial  investment,  and  leaves  the  soil  so 
that  sometimes  the  property  can  be  resold  to  advantage  for  farming. 
(Chapter  VII.) 

In  small  communities  a  disposal  of  garbage  by  incineration  meets 
with  several  difficulties.  It  requires  a  large  investment  cost,  and, 
unless  garbage  can  be  burned  together  with  other  refuse,  the  opera- 


622     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

tion  cost  is  high.  A  further  diificulty,  compared  with  large  cities, 
arises  from  the  fact  that  the  local  refuse  varies  much  more  per  hour  and 
day.  It  requires  an  experienced  and  able  management,  which  is  not 
always  available  in  a  small  town  or  village.  Consequently,  some 
existing  town  furnaces  in  the  United  States,  often  both  improperly 
designed  and  operated,  have  frequently  been  unsatisfactory. 

The  next  desirable  step  is  to  consider  the  collection  of  rubbish. 
It  can  be  collected  mixed  with  the  garbage  if  the  refuse  is  to  be  burned. 
When  rubbish  is  to  be  collected  separately,  special  rubbish  wagons 
should  be  secured.  They  should  call  at  each  house  once  every  ten 
to  fourteen  days.  During  the  interval  the  householders  should  bundle 
the  rubbish  or  store  it  in  a  barrel.  In  a  small  town,  with  average  con- 
ditions of  haul  and  distribution,  one  collector  should  be  able  to  collect 
the  rubbish  from  75  to  150  houses  per  day,  depending  on  the  density 
of  the  population. 

The  disposal  of  rubbish  in  small  towns  should  not  be  by  dumping, 
unless  this  is  unavoidable,  because  of  the  unsightliness,  the  settling 
of  the  fill;  and  also  because  promiscuous  fires  may  be  unwittingly 
started,  thus  producing  bad  odors  which  may  be  hard  to  control.  The 
best  way  for  most  small  cities  to  dispose  of  it  is  by  burning,  in  a  com- 
mon incinerator,  preceded  sometimes  by  sorting.  Certain  materials, 
amounting  to  perhaps  as  much  as  one-third  of  the  total  weight,  can 
be  picked  out  and  sold.  The  portion  which  is  not  marketable  should 
then  be  burned. 

The  advisability  of  sorting  the  rubbish  of  a  particular  town 
depends  partly  on  the  sanitary  aspect  and  partly  on  the  market 
prices  of  the  recoverable  articles.  With  a  favorable  market,  rubbish 
sorting  can  be  made  to  yield  a  slight  margin  above  the  operating 
and  fixed  charges.  It  should  be  a  local  question  whether  this 
margin  is  worth  the  undertaking.  Promiscuous  scavenging  should 
be  prohibited. 

To  prevent  accumulations  of  tin  cans  in  vacant  lots  is  another 
desirable  object  for  a  small  town.  The  cans  are  first  collected  with  the 
garbage  or  rubbish.  If  the  garbage  is  buried  or  incinerated,  the  smaller 
tins  can  be  disposed  of  with  it.  After  burning,  they  crumble  and 
compress  more  easily,  and  can  be  dumped  with  the  ashes  from  the 
incinerator.  The  large  tins,  and  also  the  small  ones,  are  occasionally 
compressed  into  small  bales  in  a  hydraulic  press,  and  may  then  be 
dumped,  or  may  be  shipped  to  manufacturers  for  making  sash  weights 
or  other  ware.  Clean  tins  may  be  shipped  to  detinning  establish- 
ments or  may  be  punched  into  roofing  washers.  A  bid  of  $5  per  ton 
for  clean  tins,  f.o.b.  cars,  was  received  at  Danville,  111.,  in  July,  1916. 

Ashes,  if  not  mixed  with  other  refuse,  may  be  dumped  for  filling 


COLLECTION  AND  DLSPOSAL  IN  SMALL  TOWNS         623 

in  any  low  spots  or  for  road  making.    To  prevent  dust  from  rising  at 
dumps,  it  is  advisable  to  cover  ashes  with  a  few  inches  of  earth. 

In  small  towns  the  streets  are  not  generally  cleaned.  Therefore, 
there  are  often  no  sweepings  to  be  removed.  However,  such  removal 
is  closely  connected  with  that  of  other  refuse,  and  can  generally  be 
handled  by  the  same  officer.  Plans  for  refuse  disposal,  however, 
should  be  made  to  include  the  material  from  street  cleaning.  '  When 
there  are  sweepings  in  small  towns,  and  even  when  they  are  collected 
alone,  they  may  safely  be  dumped  for  filling  low  land. 

In  planning  a  refuse  disposal  system  for  a  small  community  having 
limited  areas  available  for  dumping,  these  areas  should  be  reserved 
for  street  sweepings  and  material  which  can  be  safely  dumped,  and 
not  for  that  which  can  be  better  disposed  of  in  other  ways.  The 
dumping  of  ashes  is  commonly  resorted  to,  if  they  are  not  mixed  with 
garbage.  In  England  the  ashes  are  mixed  with  the  garbage  and  rub- 
bish, and  the  mixed  refuse  is  burned  in  an  incinerator  of  the  high- 
temperature  type.  This  disposal  is  common  there  because  dumping 
is  rarely  practicable  for  lack  of  available  waste  land. 

Stable  manure,  probably  in  all  cases,  can  be  disposed  of  on  fields 
within  a  reasonable  length  of  haul.  Where  this,  however,  is  not 
practicable,  it  may  be  disposed  of  for  filling  in  low  land,  and  covered 
with  about  6  in.  of  soil.  Such  ground,  made  of  decomposing  material, 
will  shrink  and  settle  as  the  decomposition  proceeds.  (Chapter  VIII.) 
If  an  incinerator  is  available  for  burning  other  refuse,  it  may  be  found 
economical  under  some  conditions  to  burn  also  the  manure. 

Night-soil  can  be  treated  like  stable  manure,  but  as  it  is  more 
susceptible  to  rapid  putrefaction,  if  exposed  to  moist  and  warm  air, 
it  should  be  well  covered  immediately,  both  when  used  as  manure  or 
compost  on  fields  and  for  shallow  burial.  It  may  sometimes  be  safely 
dumped  into  the  currents  of  large  bodies  of  running  water.  It  is  also 
sometimes  burned,  but  never  economically.     (Chapter  XVI.) 

Dead  animals,  unless  they  are  collected  by  authorized  parties  for 
rendering  purposes,  are  best  disposed  of  by  burial  at  convenient  and 
suitable  places.  The  best  material  for  burial  is  sandy  soil,  with  a 
covering  of  from  1  to  3  ft.,  with  good  natural  drainage,  but  with  the 
percolating  water  not  entering  a  source  of  water  supply  within 
several  hundred  to  upwards  of  1000  ft.,  depending  on  the  porosity 
of  the  soil  and  the  grade.  Soil  saturated  with  water  is  objection- 
able for  burial.  A  loose  loamy  soil  having  some  porosity  is  much 
better  than  pure  clay.  Unobjectionable  decomposition  is  then  pro- 
duced by  oxidation  through  bacteria  requiring  air  for  their  activities. 
It  takes  place,  therefore,  near  the  surface,  instead  of  at  great  depth, 
and  in  porous  rather  than  in  compact  soil.     (Chapter  XVI.) 


624     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

When  a  town  has  grown  sufficiently  to  make  combined  inciner- 
ation practicable  and  economical,  a  careful  study  of  the  facts  should 
be  made.  If  appearing  economical,  other  conditions  should  also  be 
considered:  First,  the  location  must  not  be  objectionable;  secondly, 
in  a  small  community,  as  the  quantity  of  refuse  is  mostly  insufficient 
for  continual  burning,  intermittent  burning  is  necessary.  Where 
there  is  enough  material  only  for  operation  during  daytime,  the  fires 
can  be  banked  for  the  night.  It  is  better,  as  a  general  rule,  although 
more  costly  and  requires  more  skill,  to  have  larger  furnaces  and  to 
operate  them  once  daily  for  a  few  hours,  or  two  or  three  times  a  week, 
letting  the  fires  go  out  between  the  runs.  The  latter  practice  necessi- 
tates starting  the  fires  with  selected  and  easily  burning  materials,  such 
as  paper  and  wood,  which  do  not  create  offensive  odors.  Starting  a 
good  hot  fire  with  these  materials  before  any  garbage  or  other  odor- 
producing  material  is  thrown  in,  will  not  give  objectionable  odors  to 
the  escaping  gases. 

In  Chapter  X  the  disposal  by  incineration  has  been  discussed  from 
a  general  point  of  view,  including  the  furnaces  receiving  mixed  refuse 
(high-temperature),  and  those  receiving  only  garbage  and  sometimes 
also  rubbish  (low-temperature).  In  small  American  communities 
the  former,  even  when  properly  conducted,  have  not  usually  been 
found  economical,  and  therefore  the  latter  are  practically  the  only 
ones  that  have  received  consideration. 

In  order  to  get  the  best  operation,  it  is  of  first  importance  to  know 
the  character  of  the  refuse  that  will  be  available,  and  the  calorific 
value  of  the  separate  parts,  as  well  as  of  any  mixture  that  may  seem 
to  be  obtainable  and  economical.  The  result  will  then  indicate 
whether  any  fuel,  and  how  much,  should  be  added  in  a  given  case  to 
secure  satisfactory  combustion. 

The  mixture  may  sometimes  be  able  to  produce  steam,  for  which  a 
higher  temperature  wiU  be  required.  On  the  other  hand,  steam  may 
not  be  desired,  and  a  low-temperature  furnace  may  be  sufficient. 
Yet,  as  a  nuisance  may  sometimes  arise  if  the  temperature  is  less  than 
1200°  Fahr.,  it  is  desirable,  when  operating  the  furnace,  to  manage  the 
fires  so  that  the  temperature  will  not  fall  below  that  figure.  Incinera- 
tion of  refuse  in  a  small  town  requires  a  sufficient  investment  for  oper- 
ating cost  to  obtain  satisfactory  results,  and  if  the  quantity  of  refuse  is 
not  enough  to  permit  the  continuous  operation  of  the  furnace,  the  unit 
operating  cost  will  be  correspondingly  high. 

Preliminary  designs  and  estimates  of  cost,  both  of  construction 
and  operation,  should  be  made,  eA^en  in  small  towns,  in  order  to  deter- 
mine the  best  method  of  disposal. 

To  recapitulate,  we  find  that  small  communities  generally  have 


COLLECT  ION  AND  DISPOSAL  IN  SMALL  TOWNS  625 

less  trouble  than  large  cities  in  disposing  of  their  solid  refuse,  partly 
because  some  of  it  can  be  readily  taken  care  of  on  the  premises.  When 
this  is  no  longer  satisfactory,  the  first  community  effort  should  be  to 
collect  the  garbage,  and  then  to  dispose  of  it  in  a  proper  way,  either 
by  feeding  or  burial.  Later,  it  becomes  desirable  for  the  community 
to  collect  also  the  rubbish,  and  to  destroy  it  properly.  This  is  best 
done  by  incineration.  When  ashes  are  collected  by  the  town,  it 
becomes  a  question  whether  a  separate  dumping  or  other  utilization 
is  most  economical  and  preferable.  If  the  ashes  are  mixed  with 
garbage  and  rubbish  at  the  houses,  as  the  town  grows  larger,  a 
combined  incineration  may  be  advisable,  perhaps  producing  steam 
and  clinker,  as  done  extensively  in  Europe.  When  some  ashes  are 
surreptitiously  mixed  with  the  garbage,  a  low-temperature  furnace 
will  not  work  properly.  Tin  cans  may  be  compressed  into  bales, 
and  either  dumped  or  sold  as  old  iron. 

Thus  a  town  may  adopt  a  progressive  plan  as  funds  permit.  Such  a 
plan,  as  a  whole,  should,  of  course,  be  adjusted  to  each  locality  by  one 
who  is  experienced  in  refuse  disposal  work.  In  some  cases  it  will  be 
feasible  and  desirable  to  build  an  incinerator  when  the  collection 
service  is  first  started,  but  it  should  never  be  in  advance  of  a  good 
collection  system. 

D.  HOUSE  TREATMENT  AND  ORDINANCES 

The  house  treatment  and  general  ordinances  to  govern  this  service 
should  be  adjusted  to  the  plan  adopted  for  disposal.  Many  house- 
holders would  be  willing  to  wrap  the  garbage  in  paper  before  placing 
it  in  the  can.  This  is  a  good  practice,  except  in  the  case  of  hog  feed- 
ing, and  may  be  considered  in  determining  the  general  plan. 

In  most  small  communities  there  are  no  adequate  ordinances  cov- 
ering the  refuse  disposal  problem.  In  some,  regulations  were  adopted 
from  time  to  time,  but  resulted  either  only  in  a  partial  solution  of 
the  problem,  or  in  conflicting  measures.  In  larger  cities  the  ordi- 
nances are  prepared  by  better  equipped  legal  departments,  and  are 
usually  more  comprehensive.  An  outline  for  an  ordinance  for  a 
small  town  is  given  below.  It  is  somewhat  more  complete  than  is 
often  required,  but  may  readily  be  adjusted  to  local  conditions. 

"  AN  ORDINANCE  defining  refuse  materials  and  establishing  proper 
sanitary  methods  for  handling  and  keeping  such  materials  on  any  premises 
whatsoever  in  the  city  of    *  *  *  * 

"  Section  1. — Definitions:  The  general  term  '  refuse  '  is  defined  to  be  the 
more  or  less  solid  waste  resulting  from  the  activities  of  the  inhabitants  of  the 
city,  exclusive  of  sewage  flowing  in  pipes,  sewers,  or  upon  the  ground,  and 


626     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

night-soil  from  privy  vaults,  dry  closets,  and  other  such  places.  The  six 
materials  making  up  refuse  are  defined  as  follows: 

(a)  Garbage  is  the  organic  waste  matter,  both  animal  and  vegetable,  from 
houses,  kitchens,  restaurants,  hotels,  hospitals,  etc.  It  comprises  chiefly 
waste  food. 

(6)  Ashes  are  the  residue  from  fires  in  houses,  schools,  churches,  stores, 
hospitals,  business  estabUshments,  etc.  This  waste  is  almost  wholly  inorganic, 
and  includes  at  times  small  quantities  of  glass,  crockery,  dirt,  sweepings,  dust, 
brick,  metal,  and  other  inorganic  materials. 

(c)  Tins  are  defined  as  the  empty  tin  cans  in  which  foods  have  been  pre- 
served, including  also  discarded  tin  and  metal  ware,  both  large  and  small, 
from  houses,  stores,  restaurants,  hospitals,  business  establishments,  etc. 

(d)  Dead  animals  are  defined  as  those  larger  than  a  cat.  Dead  animals 
the  size  of  a  cat  and  smaller,  are  defined  as  garbage. 

(e)  Manure  is  defined  as  the  cleanings  from  stables,  including  straw,  shav- 
ings, leaves,  animal  droppings,  etc. 

(/)  Rubbish  is  defined  as  being  all  refuse  materials  not  included  as  garbage, 
ashes,  tins,  dead  animals,  or  manure.  It  consists  chiefly  of  wood,  paper, 
rags,  bedding,  excelsior,  straw,  leather,  rubber,  old  furniture,  stoneware,  glass, 
boxes,  barrels,  sweepings  from  buUdings,  etc. 

"  Section  2. — Separation  of  Refuse  Materials:  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  all 
occupants  of  buildings  to  keep  these  refuse  materials  separated  from  each  other 
in  proper  receptacles  provided  for  the  purpose,  as  hereinafter  specified. 

"  Section  3. — Receptacles:  Proper  receptacles  shall  be  furnished,  and 
maintained  in  good  and  clean  condition  by  the  occupants  of  all  buildings,  for 
the  refuse  materials  defined  above.  These  receptacles  shall  conform  to  the 
following  descriptions: 

"  (a)  Garbage  receptacles  shall  be  made  substantially  of  metal,  and  pro- 
vided with  tight-fitting  covers  and  strong  handles.  Each  can  shall  have  a 
capacity  of  not  more  than  15  gal.  Cans  shall  have  a  diameter  equal  to  at  least 
three-quarters  of  their  height.  If  one  can  is  not  sufficient  to  hold  the  quantity 
of  garbage  accumulated  between  collections,  a  suflBcient  number  of  cans 
shall  be  provided. 

"  (6)  Ash  receptacles  shall  be  of  metal  or  wood,  strongly  buUt  to  stand  the 
wear  and  tear  of  handling,  and  shall  be  fitted  with  tight-fitting  covers  and 
strong  handles.  Each  receptacle  shall  have  a  capacity  of  not  more  than  40 
gal.  If  one  receptacle  is  not  sufficient  to  hold  the  quantity  of  ashes  produced 
between  collections,  a  sufficient  number  shall  be  provided. 

"  (c)  Receptacles  for  Tin  Cans  shall  be  of  metal  with  tight  covers  and 
strong  handles.  Each  receptacle  shaU  have  a  capacity  of  not  more  than  30  gal. 
If  one  receptacle  is  not  sufficient  to  hold  the  tin  cans  accumulated  between 
collections,  a  sufficient  number  shall  be  provided.  Large  tin  cans  shall  be 
stacked  compactly  near  the  receptacle  for  tin  cans. 

"  (d)  No  receptacle  need  be  provided  for  most  of  the  Rubbish.  It  shall 
be  securely  tied  up  in  bundles  of  convenient  size  to  be  easily  carried  away  by 
one  man  and  deposited  in  a  collection  wagon.  Other  rubbish,  such  as 
sweepings,  should  be  put  in  the  ash  barrel. 


COLLECTION  AND  DLSPOSAL  IN  SMALL  TOWNS  627 

"  (e)  Manure:  Every  person  who  maintains  a  stable  in  which  animals 
are  kept,  shall  provide  a  receptacle  of  wood  or  concrete  for  the  storage  of 
the  manure.  These  receptacles  shall  have  a  capacity  of  at  least  10  cu.  ft.  for 
each  animal  stabled.  Each  receptacle  shall  be  water-tight  and  fly-tight,  and 
shall  have  a  heavy,  tight-fitting,  self-closing  cover,  which  shall  be  kept  closed 
at  all  times  except  when  manure  is  being  placed  therein  or  removed  therefrom. 

"  Section  4. —  Location  of  Receptacles:  Receptacles  for  house  refuse  shall 
be  kept  in  au  accessible  location  near  the  rear  door  of  the  house.  This  loca- 
tion shall  be  arranged  to  facilitate  the  removal  of  the  refuse  by  the  collector. 
Receptacles  for  manure  shall  be  placed  where  they  can  be  reached  conveniently 
by  the  collector.  In  all  cases  the  location  of  the  refuse  receptacles  shall  be 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Commissioner  of  Health.  Ash  receptacles  may 
be  kept  in  the  basement,  except  on  special  days  provided  for  their  col- 
lection. 

"  Section  5. —  House  Treatment. — All  receptacles  for  house  refuse  shall 
be  kept  in  a  clean  and  sanitary  condition,  free  from  cracks,  leaks,  loose  covers, 
etc. 

"  Section  6. — Stable  Treatment:  All  manure  at  stables  shall  be  treated 
between  May  15th  and  October  15th  with  a  chemical  or  other  substance  which 
will  act  as  a  satisfactory  disinfectant  and  repellent  to  flies.  Suitable  fly 
traps  may  also  be  prescribed  by  the  Commissioner  of  Health.  The  presence 
of  fly  eggs,  or  maggots,  or  flies  will  be  sufficient  evidence  that  such  accumula- 
tion of  manure  has  not  been  sufficiently  or  properly  treated,  or  protected. 

"  Section  7. — Establishments  Operated  for  Profit:  Hotels,  restaurants, 
stores,  markets,  boarding  houses,  and  other  establishments  operated  on  a 
business  basis,  shall  conform  to  the  requirements  of  the  ordinances  as  enumer- 
ated above,  unless  special  exemption  is  given  by  the  Commissioner  of  Health. 
However,  no  garbage  will  be  removed  from  any  such  establishments  by  the 
city  except  to  prevent  unsanitary  conditions,  and  then  only  at  the  expense  of 
the  occupant  or  proprietor.  All  such  estabhshments  shall  remove  the  gar- 
bage from  their  premises  and  properly  dispose  of  it  at  least  twice  a  week. 

"  Section  8. — Removal  of  Refuse:  Garbage  will  be  removed  by  the  city 
from  private  premises  where  proper  receptacles  are  provided  and  maintained, 
and  where  the  occupants  comply  with  this  ordinance.  Manure  shall  be  re- 
moved, by  persons  who  maintain  stables,  at  sufficiently  frequent  intervals  so 
that  the  receptacles  provided  for  the  manure  shall  never  become  full;  except 
that  between  May  15th  and  October  15th,  no  manure  shall  remain  on  any 
premises  within  the  city  limits  longer  than  one  week,  unless  special  provisions 
are  made  for  its  disposal,  with  the  approval  of  the  Commissioner  of  Health. 
Any  manure  not  removed  in  accordance  with  this  ordinance,  by  persons 
who  maintain  stables,  will  be  removed  by  the  city,  and  the  cost  of  the  removal 
will  be  collected  from  persons  failing  to  comply  with  this  ordinance. 

"  Section  9. — Scavenging:  It  shall  be  unlawful  for  any  occupant  of  any 
building  in  the  city  to  permit  any  person  to  pick  over  any  accumulation  of 
refuse  for  the  purpose  of  sorting  out  and  recovering  any  waste  materials  or  for 
any  other  purpose." 


628     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


E.  RESULTS  IN  PRACTICE 

Officials  in  small  towns,  struggling  with  the  refuse  disposal  prob- 
lem, are  generally  interested  in  the  experience  gained  in  other  com- 
munities. One  particularly  useful  example  of  such  is  at  Sewickley, 
Pa.  (1915),  described  by  the  superintendent,  as  follows: 

"  The  Borough  has  5000  population,  residential  in  character,  with  few  or 
no  factories.  The  equipment  owned  by  the  City  is  a  two-story  brick  building 
enclosing  incinerator,  costing  $8000,  and  adjoining  stable  and  storage  rooms, 
built  at  a  cost  of  $2000.  The  collection  system  includes  two  specially  made 
wagons,  platforms  on  long  wagon  beds  with  side  removable  guards,  drawn  by 
two  horses,  with  two  men,  driver  and  collector. 

"  The  Borough  furnishes  the  cans,  of  the  usual  capacity  of  11  gal.,  specially 
made  for  the  service,  and  purchased  in  lots  of  200  or  more,  costing  from  $1.20 
to  $1.40  each,  depending  on  the  cost  of  the  raw  material.  They  are  built  to 
withstand  hard  usage,  and  have  an  average  life  of  three  and  one-half  to  four 
years.  They  are  placed  in  any  location  convenient  for  the  householder,  and 
receive  all  classes  of  refuse  except  ashes. 

"  The  collections  are  made  once  a  week  in  the  residence  district,  except  in 
the  summer  when  they  are  made  three  times  in  two  weeks.  Hotels  and  hos- 
pitals have  collections  twice  a  week.  Each  wagon  holds  seventy-two  cans,  and 
they  are  removed  from  the  house  full,  each  can  being  replaced  with  another. 
Only  one  wagon  is  used  at. a  time,  the  other  being  loaded  with  empty  cans  at 
the  furnace.  Four  trips  a  day  bring  285  cans,  holding  approximately  4  tons  of 
garbage  and  rubbish.  An  additional  ton  is  brought  by  grocers,  making  a  daily 
incineration  of  5  tons.  The  cans  are  sterilized  by  hot  water  and  steam  before 
use.  The  incinerator  is  operated  in  two  shifts,  with  one  man  beginning 
at  5  A.M.  and  a  second  at  2  p.m. 

"  This  method  has  been  in  use  for  eight  years  and  has  been  very  satisfac- 
tory. The  residents  are  relieved  of  any  responsibility  for  the  purchase  of 
cans  and  payment  for  collection.  The  Board  of  Health  is  satisfied  because 
the  system  is  perfectly  sanitary,  and  the  Borough  officials  feel  they  have  met 
a  necessary  obligation  at  a  comparatively  low  cost. 

"  The  total  investment,  exclusive  of  real  estate,  is  distributed  as  follows: 

' '  Building,  driveway,  platform,  and  incinerator $8,500 

Cans,  1285  at  $1.20  (average  price) 1,542 

Stable 2,000 

Two  horses  and  harness 700 

Two  wagons 400 


$13,142 


"  The  average  yearly  charges  for  the  past  four  years,  to  December,  1914, 
are  as  follows: 


COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  IN  SMALL  TOWNS         629 

"  Removing  and  collecting  garbage  (wages  of  two  furnace  men,  one 

driver,  one  collector) $2,864 

Coal  and  coke 705 

Freight,  coal,  and  supplies 405 

Horse  feed  and  blacksmithing 524 

Repairs 253 

Insurance 37 

Cans 440 

Miscellaneous 96 

$5,324 

"  On  a  basis  of  5000  population,  these  figures  give  an  average  cost  of  $1.06 
per  inhabitant  per  year.  This  is  raised  by  tij  of  a  mill  tax  on  the  Borough 
valuation.  These  figures  make  no  allowance  for  interest  or  sinking  fund 
charges.  The  appropriation  for  1915  was  $6000.  The  cost  of  collection, 
requiring  half  the  total  items  for  wages,  the  horse  feed,  blacksmithing,  and 
cans,  totals  $2444,  or  $0.48  per  capita.  The  incineration  charges  requiring 
the  remainder  of  the  expenses,  are  $2880,  or  $0.58  per  inhabitant." 

In  1913,  Greeley  made  a  report  on  refuse  collection  and  disposal 
in  Winnetka  and  Glencoe,  111.,  which  discusses  the  refuse  disposal 
methods  applicable  to  villages. 

The  summary  and  recommendations  of  the  report  are  as  follows: 

"  I  find  the  most  pressing  need  of  these  two  villages,  as  far  as  refuse  dis- 
posal is  concerned,  to  be  the  establishment  of  a  general  public  system.  At  the 
present  time,  only  about  25%  of  the  residents  have  their  garbage  and  ashes 
removed.  The  matter  is  a  private  arrangement  between  these  residents  and 
the  local  scavengers.  An  expenditure  for  refuse  disposal  on  as  large  a  scale  as 
required  for  a  crematory  should  not  be  undertaken  until  the  collection  of 
refuse  has  become  general  in  the  villages.  Otherwise  the  expense  of  disposal 
will  be  for  the  few  only,  and  should  be  paid  for  by  them.  The  treatment  of 
manure  at  the  stables  is  inadequate,  and  should  be  improved,  and  the  disposal 
is  often  irregular.  Finally,  the  miscellaneous  dumping  of  old  tin  cans  is  a 
nuisance,  and  should  cease. 

"  In  view  of  these  conditions  and  investigations,  I  make  the  following  six 
recommendations,  upon  which  I  urge  you  to  secure  action  by  the  village  coun- 
cils: 

"  (1)  Suitable  ordinances  for  a  sanitary  code  should  be  drawn  up  and 
enforced,  governing  the  house  treatment,  collection,  and  final  disposal  of 
garbage,  ashes,  rubbish,  and  manure,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  out- 
lined above. 

"  (2)  The  villages  should  purchase  the  necessary  equipment  and  should 
put  into  operation  a  collection  system  to  serve  the  total  population  of  the  two 
villages  for  the  regular  removal  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish. 

"  (3)  Arrangements  should  be  made,  by  purchase  or  rental,  for  the  use  of 
two  areas,  one  in  each  village  near  the  western  limits,  where  the  garbage  can 
be  buried  properly  and  where  the  combustible  rubbish  can  be  burned.     Pro- 


630     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 


vision  should  be  made  at  these  areas  for  the  delivery  of  clean  garbage  to 
farmers. 

"  (4)  Stable  owners  should  be  informed  of  a  satisfactory  method  for  the 
stable  treatment  of  manure,  and  its  regular  removal  should  be  secured. 

"  (5)  A  hydraulic  press  and  hand  pump  for  baling  tin  cans  should  be  pur- 
chased and  installed  in  a  small  house,  and  the  tin  sold  for  sash  weights. 

"  (6)  As  a  definite  solution  for  the  future,  the  two  villages  should  look  for- 
ward to  a  common  plant  where  the  rubbish  could  be  picked  over  and  the  mar- 
ketable portion  sold,  and  where  the  garbage  and  the  unmarketable  portion 
could  be  burned." 

Winnetka  and  Glencoe  are  almost  entirely  residential  in  charac- 
ter, and  are  within  the  Chicago  metropolitan  district.  In  1910  the 
population  of  Winnetka  was  3168,  and  of  Glencoe,  1899.  The  popu- 
lation is  scattered,  and  long  hauls  for  small  quantities  of  refuse  were 
to  be  expected. 

Three  methods  of  disposal  for  garbage  were  considered:  (1)  Feed- 
ing to  hogs,  (2)  burial  in  the  ground,  and  (3)  incineration  with  the 
addition  of  coal. 

Feeding  to  hogs  necessitates  the  establishment  and  maintenance 
of  a  hog  farm.  An  estimate  of  the  first  cost  of  a  farm  large  enough  to 
handle  the  quantity  of  garbage  produced  in  1920  is  given  in  Chapter 
VIII.  The  cost  of  this  farm  was  estimated  at  $30,000  for  a  popula- 
tion of  9000.  The  revenue  from  the  sale  of  pork  was  expected  to 
balance  the  annual  operating  costs. 

Disposal  by  burial  necessitates  the  purchase  of  land.  In  deter- 
mining the  area  required,  one  acre  of  land  was  estimated  to  be  neces- 
sary for  every  1|  tons  of  garbage  every  week  day  for  a  year.  The 
first  cost  of  burial  fields  for  the  villages  was  estimated  as  follows : 


Winnetka 

Glencoe 

$5000 

$2600 

500 

500 

200 

200 

600 

600 

300 

300 

100 

100 

400 

400 

400 

300 

$7500 

$5000 

500 

500 

Land,  10  acres  at 
6.5  acres  at 
Attendant's  house  (10  by  20  ft.)  at  $2  (say) . 

Washing  platform 

Water  line  extension,  1000  ft.  at  $0.60  per  ft 

Drainage 

Tools  and  hose 

Planting 

Repairs  to  road 

Roadways 

Engineering  and  contingencies 

Total  first  cost 


$5500 


COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  IN  SMALL  TOWNS         631 
The  annual  operating  cost  was  estimated  to  be: 


Winnetka 


Glencoe 


Attendance — 1^  men  at  $750  per  year  (say) 

1  man  at  $750  per  year 

Supplies,  water,  etc 

Repairs 

Spring  plowing 

Interest,  $8000  at  4^% 

5500at4|% 

Total  annual  expenses 


$1200 

200 

100 

50 


$750 

150 

100 

50 


$1550 
360 


$1050 


248 


$1910 


$1298 


The  estimate  of  the  cost  of  garbage  disposal  by  incineration  was 
based  on  an  incinerator  having  a  capacity  of  15  tons  per  twenty-four 
hours.  The  quantity  of  coal  required  was  assumed  to  be  300  lb.  per 
ton  of  garbage. 

The  estimate  for  cost  of  construction  of  the  incinerator  was: 

Furnace,  complete,  including  foundation  and  building $10,000 

Runway,  and  coal  yard 1,000 

Water  connections 200 

Paving  in  yard 500 

Wagon  scales  and  house 1,000 

Fence 800 

Land,  1  acre 300 

Engineering  and  contingencies 1,500 

Total $18,000 

The  estimated  annual  cost  of  operation  was: 

Labor,  one  man,  whole  time $  900 

one  man,  half  time 450 

Fuel,  165  tons  at  $4  per  ton 660 

Water 100 

Repairs  and  supplies 490 

Total $2,600 

Interest,  $18,000  at  4|% 810 

Depreciation 670 

Total  annual  cost $4,080 


632     COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  UF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

The  method  of  feeding  to  hogs  was  recommended  on  account  of 
the  expected  revenue  therefrom. 

It  was  planned  to  dispose  of  the  ashes  by  fill,  as  there  were 
many  low  spots  available  for  this  purpose,  and  also  new  roadways 
building. 

The  method  of  disposing  of  the  rubbish  was  by  sorting  out  salable 
material  and  burying  or  burning  the  remainder.  Of  the  marketable 
material,  the  paper  was  to  be  shipped  to  one  buyer,  the  glass  to 
another,  and  the  scrap  iron  to  a  third.  Carload  lots  would  be  neces- 
sary. The  equipment  would  have  to  be  housed  in  a  two-story 
building. 

This  program  has  been  partly  developed.  A  comprehensive 
ordinance  has  been  passed,  and  kitchen  cards  distributed.  Canvas- 
covered  garbage  carts  (capacity,  1.5  cu.  yd.)  have  been  purchased, 
also  10-cu.  yd.  rubbish  wagons  and  3-cu.  yd.  ash  wagons  for  bottom- 
dumping.  Free  collections  of  garbage,  ashes,  and  rubbish  are  made  at 
comparatively  infrequent  intervals,  but  planned  so  as  to  fall  within 
the  annual  appropriations  allowed  by  law.  More  frequent  service  is 
furnished  to  those  who  wish  it,  on  payment  of  25  cents  per  month  for 
each  room  in  the  house.  This  arrangement  keeps  the  town  clean, 
obviates  the  need  for  annual  clean-up  weeks,  and  provides  good  service 
those  who  produce  the  larger  quantities  of  refuse  and  are  able  to  pay 
for  such  service.  During  the  winter,  when  the  quantity  of  garbage  is 
small,  two  garbage  containers  are  attached  to  the  rear  of  the  ash 
wagons,  thus  reducing  the  cost  of  collection. 


F.  SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS 

The  refuse  problem  in  small  communities  should  receive  more 
consideration  than  is  usually  given  to  it,  if  cleanliness  and  sanitation 
are  to  be  satisfactory.  Usually  and  properly,  the  water  supply 
is  of  first  importance,  and  secondly  the  sewerage.  After  these  are 
provided,  the  refuse  problem  calls  for  community  attention.  Funds 
are  generally  not  abundant,  and  progressive  solutions  are  desired, 
with  the  greatest  utilization  of  all  existing  advantages. 

To  prevent  a  waste  of  invested  funds,  it  is  economical,  even  for 
small  communities,  to  have  experienced  advice  on  the  best  procedure. 
It  may  not  be  practicable  to  build  works  at  once,  but  only  in  part, 
leaving  the  future  to  make  extensions  and  enlargements.  This 
would  provide  a  plan  which  later  would  be  along  the  lines  of  the  best 
sanitation  and  least  cost,  and  prevent  a  possible  abandonment  of  the 
works   built,   or,   present  the  introduction,   perhaps,   of  undesirable 


COLLECTION  AND  DLSPOSAL  IN  SMALL  TOWNS         633 

features.  In  all  cases  it  is  important  to  secure  community  control,  but 
only  after  a  most  careful  examination  has  been  made  into  the  specific 
characteristics  of  the  local  problem. 

It  is  important  to  adjust  all  procedures  to  the  general  and  local 
conditions,  and  to  know  the  quantities  and  kinds  of  refuse  materials, 
because  these  determine  the  choice  of  the  method  of  disposal.  A 
closer  knowledge  of  the  quantities  and  character  of  the  materials 
should  extend,  if  possible,  over  a  period  of  at  least  one  year,  in  order 
to  embrace  the  different  seasonal  variations.  Particularly,  probable 
extremes  should  be  known,  as  the  yearly  average  production  may 
differ  much  from  the  maximum  and  minimum  rates;  and  the  capacity 
of  the  works,  if  based  on  an  average,  might  fall  quite  short  of  the 
requirement. 

It  is  important,  further,  to  obtain  accurate  measurements  and 
data  covering  the  house  treatment,  collection,  possible  transportation, 
and  final  disposition,  so  that  they  will  be  available  at  any  time  when 
further  improvements  become  economical  and  desirable. 

The  essentials  of  refuse  collection  and  treatment  in  small  com- 
munities, therefore,  may  be  stated  briefly  as  follows: 

The  house  treatment  should  be  regulated  by  ordinances,  so  that 
efficiency  and  economy  for  the  community  as  well  as  the  occupants 
will  result. 

The  collection  should  be  as  frequent  as  required  by  the  local  con- 
ditions and  the  selected  method  of  disposal,  and  it  should  be  done  in  a 
manner  to  prevent  any  objectionable  features  in  the  delivery  of  the 
materials.  It  may  be  done  by  force  account  under  an  efficient 
superintendent,  or  by  contract  under  sufficiently  detailed  specifica- 
tions and  supervision. 

The  selection  of  the  final  disposal  system  should  be  made  only 
after  a  careful  study.  In  general,  separate  collections  of  the  different 
classes  of  the  refuse  will  be  preferable  for  small  communities. 

Garbage  may  be  disposed  of  by  feeding  to  hogs,  or,  if  this  is  not 
feasible,  by  shallow  burial  or  incineration. 

Rubbish  may  have  parts  of  it  picked  out  by  licensed  scavengers, 
and  this  privilege  be  sold  at  a  slight  profit.  The  remainder  should  be 
incinerated.  The  latter  can  be  done  in  wire  baskets  or  barrels  at  the 
houses,  or  in  small  furnaces  for  institutions.  If  the  community 
undertakes  the  disposal,  it  should  be  done  in  amply  large  furnaces. 
When  burning  refuse,  regulations  should  be  followed  carefully,  in  order 
to  avoid  offensive  odors.  It  is  practicable  and  economical  in  a  num- 
ber of  towns  to  incinerate  a  mixture  of  rubbish  with  garbage,  with- 
out ashes,  and  in  some  houses  a  small  quantity  of  garbage  in  the 
kitchen    stove,    preferably   after   desiccation    in   the   flue.    It  is   not 


634    COLLECTION  AND  DISPOSAL  OF  MUNICIPAL  REFUSE 

advisable  to  dump  rubbish  on  any  ground  that  is  expected  to  be 
used  for  any  other  purpose  within  a  few  years. 

Under  proper  regulations,  street  sweepings  and  ashes  in  small 
towns  may  be  generally  best  disposed  of  by  dumping  in  low  places. 

Stable  manure  should  usuaUy  be  disposed  of  for  fertilizing  neigh- 
boring fields,  rarely  by  filling  in  low  areas. 

Night-soil  is  best  buried  in  shallow  trenches,  or  used  as  a  fertilizer 
on  fields;  and  dead  animals,  unless  collected  for  rendering  purposes, 
should  be  buried  in  a  suitable  material. 


INDEX 


Accrington,  England;    incinerator,  341-345 
Agriculture,    U.    S.    Dept.    of;     hog    farin, 
design  for,  283,  285-286 
motor  trucks,  costs,  187 
Air,  supply  for  incinerators,  315-323,  350- 
360 
volume  and  weight,  318 
See  also  Incineration. 
Akron,  Ohio;    hog  farm,  259 

reduction,  524-525 
Albany,  N.  Y.;    collection,  106 
disposal,  106 

engineering,  preliminary  expense,  514 
Alcohol,  recovered  from  garbage,  239,  453- 

454 
Aldershot,  England;     incinerator,  340,  344, 

347 
Allen,  Col.  H.  A.;   reduction  plant,  Chicago, 
453,  491-494 
drier  system,  491 
valuation,  542-545 
Almert,  Harold;   valuation,  reduction  plant, 

Chicago,  542-545 
Alvord,  John  W.;    burial  of  garbage,  cost, 

257 
American  Public  Health  Association;   Com- 
mittee on  Garbage  Disposal,  2,  12 
refuse,  collection  and  disposal,  104-105 
statistics,     standard    forms,    80,    222, 
231-235 
Ammonia,    determination    of — in    garbage, 
68 
See  also  Chemical  analyses. 
Amsterdam,  Holland;    sorting  plant,  308 
Arnold  reduction  process,  449-450,  493—494 
Ash  (inorganic  matter),  determination  of,  66 

See  also  Chemical  analyses. 
Ashes,  benefit  of  mixing  with  garbage,  89 
chemical  analyses,  16,  23,  58-59,  62,  69 
freezing,  effect  of,  46 
house  treatment,  91-95 
physical  analysis,  24 

quantities,  13,  28-31,  33,  35,  45,  75-76,  i 
215 


Ashes,  proportion  iti  hotise  reiUBe,  34,  42,  44 

rainfall,  effect  on  weight  of,  44—45 

screening,  53,  89-90,  148 

unit  weight,  13-14,  33,  37,  44-40,  53 

war  time  production,  42 
Ashes  and  cinders,  chemical  analysis,  65 
Ashes  and  dirt,  chemical  analysis,  26 
Ashes  and  rubbish,  calorific  value,  24 

physical  anlayses,  24—25,  51 

quantities,  17,  20,  28,  .30-31,  33,  36-39. 
76 

unit  weight,  17,  31,  37 
Atlanta,    Ga.;    incinerator,    317,    323-32.":, 
349-350,   355-356,   358,  360,   305- 
366,  370-371,  385-388,  517 

night-soil,  disposal,  606-608 
Atlantic  City,  N.  J.;   reduction,  540 


B 

Bading,  Dr.  G.  A.;   collection  eflBciency,  37 
Baker,  M.  N.;    garbage  disposal,  2 
Baling  presses,  292-293 
Baltimore,  Md.;    collection,  106,  210,  229 

garbage,  28,  40 

hog  farm,  259,  272-273 

loading  station,  187 

reduction,  540 

transportation,  cost,  ISO 
Bamman,    F.    C;     reduction,    Washington, 

496-499 
Barges,  see  Scows. 
Barmen,  Germany;    collection,  161 

incinerator,  554—555 

refuse,  70,  77-78 
Barney  self-dumping  scow,  169 
Barren  Island,   N.  Y.;    reduction,  461-465, 

468-469,  471,  476,  478 
Bartlett  and  Snow   Co.,   C.   O.;    reduction 
plants,  cost,  524 

Los  Angeles,  484-486 

Rochester,  523 

Staten  Island,  480-484 
Beaston,  G.  D.;    valuation,  reduction  plant, 
Rochester,  545 


635 


636 


INDEX 


Berkeley,  Cal.;   collection,  cost,  226 

incinerator,  370-371,  385-386,  407-408, 
517 
Berlin,  Germany;    ashes,  75 

burial  of  garbage,  238,  256 

collection,  113 

garbage,  75 

refuse,  70,  75,  78 

report,  disposal,  Bohm  and  Grohn,  26 

rubbish,  48,  50,  75 

street  refuse,  592-593,  596 
Berlit;    incinerators,   charging  device,  336- 

337 
Bernstein,   Alex.;     report,   reduction  plant, 

Cleveland,  477,  521 
Besson,     Maj.     F.     S. ;      garbage    disposal, 

Washington,  499 
Binghamton,  N.  Y.;    collection,  227 
Birmingham,  England;    collection,  161 

incinerator,  344—345,  550,  555 
Birt,  Emyle;    manure,  analyses,  571 
Blount,  Irving;    steam  press,  469 
Boats,  see  Scows. 
Bohm  and  Grohn;   report,  Berlin,  26 

analyses  of  refuse,  75 
Boilers,     see     Incinerators    and     Reduction 

plants. 
Bonnet,   Frederic,   Jr.;    collection  and   dis- 
posal, Louisville,  20 

foot-and-mouth  disease,  264—265 

hog  cholera  medicines,  261—264 

hog  farm,  cost,  268-269,  626 
Boston,  Mass. ;    ashes,  14,  28,  30,  35 

collection,  106,  224,  228-230 

disposal,  cost,  106 

dumping  in  water,  169,  243 

dumps,  cost  of  upkeep,  246—249 

garbage,  14,  28,  30,  35,  40 

horse  maintenance,  197—198 

incinerator,  496 

loading  stations,  187 

motor  trucks,  144 

reduction,  476,  493-496,  540 

report,   collection  and  disposal,   Good- 
nough,  12 

rubbish,  14,  28,  30,  35,  50 

sorting,  291,  496 

transportation,  174,  191,  193 
Bradford,  England;    incinerator,  345,  347 
Bricks,  bj'-product  of  incineration,  396-398 
Bridgeport,  Conn. ;    garbage,  40 

reduction,  450 

trailers,  167,  184 

transportation,  167 
British  thermal  units,  see  Chemical  analyses. 
Bronx,  Borough  of  The;    ashes,  13,  14,45 

collection,  106,  206 

garbage,  13,  14,  45 

rubbish,  13,  14,  45 


Bronx,  Borough   of    The;   street  refuse,  45, 
205,  594 
See  also  New  York. 
Brooklyn,  Borough  of;  ashes,  13,  14,  45 
cars,  172 

collection,  cost,  206 
garbage,  13,  14,  45. 
loading  station,  167 
receptacles,  172-173 
report,   collection  and  disposal,  Taylor 

and  Locke,  12 
rubbish,  13,  14,  45 
sorting  plant,  302-303 
street  refuse,  45,  205,  594 
trailers,  184 
transportation,  172 
See  also  New  York. 
Brussels,  Belgium;  garbage,  76 
refuse,  73 
street  refuse,  592 
Buffalo    N.  Y.;  ashes,  28,  30 
ashes  and  rubbish,  28 
collection,  106,  113 
disposal,  106 
garbage,  28,  30 
hog  farm,  259 
manure,  576 

reduction,  cost  by  contract,  540 
report,  collectionand  disposal, Landreth, 

12 
rubbish,  14,  28,  30 
separation  of  refuse,  110 
sorting  plant,  303-306 
trailers,  167 
transportation,  167 
Burial,  237-238,  252-257,  564,  615,  623 
costs,  254-257,  541,  630-631 
manure,  252 
night-soil,  262,  623 
for  small  towns,  621,  629-631 
statistics,  standard  form,  234 
in  trenches,  256 
Byproducts   from   incinerators,    314,    355, 
367,  390-398 


Calgary,   Alberta;     motor   trucks,    182-184, 
217,  220 
trailers,  183-184 
transportation,  174,  217,  220 
Calorific   values,    determination   of,    66-67, 
315-316,  433-453 
of  refuse,   70,  72,  78,  315-316,  361-363, 

433-434 
of  various  substances,  317,  319,  361-363 
See  also  Chemical  analyses. 
Cambridge,  Mass.;    ashes  and    rubbish,  28, 
37 
garbage,  28,  37 


INDEX 


637 


Cane,  see  Receptacles. 

Carbon,  fixed,  determination  of,  OG 

See  also  Chemical  analyses. 
Cargill,  A.  B.;    refuse,  errors  in  weight,  10 
Cars,    costs,    168,    173,    199-200,    208-209, 
216-217,  221 
railroad,  170-174,  200,  208,  216,  221 
tank,  170-171 

trolley,  168,  172-174,  199,  221 
Carts,  119-120,  134-135,  205 

See  also  Wagons. 
Chamberlain,    M.    H.;     reduction    process, 

450-451,  497,  499 
Champaign,  111. ;  burial,  256 
Chapin,  Dr.  Charles  V.;  hog  feeding,  286 
Charlottenburg,  Germany;   ashes,  69 
ashes  and  house  sweepings,  76 
garbage,  69,  76 
refuse,  70,  78 

report,  disposal,  Thiesing,  26,  09 
rubbish,  76 
Chemical  analyses,  15-16,  20,  22-23,  26-27, 
32,  47,  54-72,  75-76 
ground-up  refuse,  239 
method  of  taking  sample,  18,  63 
moisture  determination,  63,  65 
necessary  for  design  of  incinerators,  57, 

314-317,  388 
number  required,  63 
procedure,  63-69 
statistics,  standard  form,  233 
uniformity  in  method,  63 
variations  in,  57,  64 
See  also  under  names  of  materials. 
Chicago,  111. ;   ashes  and  rubbish,  24-25,  28, 
30-31,  33,  36-39,  51 
cars,  172 

collection,  39,  106-107,  118,  121,  124- 
132,  154-155,  159,  207,  224,227,229 
dead  animals,  613 
disposal,  106 

dumping  on  land,  248-249 
engineering,  preliminary  expense,  514 
garbage,  14,  22,  28,  30,  33,  36,  38-39, 

251-252 
grease,  22,  32,  457,  541 
hauling,  207 
loading,  197,  207 
loading    stations,    166,     168-169,     187, 

191-192 
manure,  569 

motor  trucks,  146,  174-180,  201,  203 
reduction,  453,  459-460,  463,  465-466, 
469,  491-494,  525,  536,  540,  542- 
545 
refuse,  24-25,  47,  51 
report,  collection  and  disposal,  Osborn 
and  Fetherston,  15,  545-548,  561- 
562 


Chicago,  111.;  hcows,  169 
sorting,  297-299 
street  dust,  588-589 
street  refuse,  598 
tankage,  22,  541 

transportation,  160,  168-109,  172-180, 
207 
Chimneys,  350,  352-361,  385,  399,  401,  408, 

476,  483 
Cincinnati,  Ohio;   ashes,  23 

ashes  and  rubbish,  20,  28,  30 

collection,  106,  229 

garbage,   14,  19,  21-23,  28,  30,  40-41, 

57,  64 
grease,  22,  32,  41,  457 
loading  stations,  167 
reduction,  451,  540 
rubbish,  48 
street  refuse,  592-593 
transportation,  167 
Cinders,  chemical  analyses,  23,  58-59,  62 
Cleveland,  Ohio;  ashes,  23 

ashes  and  rubbish,  20,  28,  30 

cars,  170-172 

collection,  106,  208-210,  224,  229 

disposal,  106 

garbage,  14,  19,  22-23,  28,  30,  40,  57 

grease,  22,  32,   56,  452,  457,  477-478, 

541 
loading  station,  166,  172,  210 
reduction,    451,    465,    467,    476,    478, 

486-488,  521,  525,  536-538 
rubbish,  48 

rules  and  regulations,  99 
tankage,  452,  478,  541 
transportation,  166,  170,  172,  200 
Clifton,  Staten  Island,  N.  Y. ;  collection,  227 
incinerator,    324,     349-350,     360,    366, 
370-371,377,388,  390,401-403,517 
refuse,  58-59 
Climate,  efifect  of,  on  quantities  of  refuse, 

46,  111 
Clinker  brick,  396-398 
analyses,  398 
tests,  398 
Clinker,    by-product    of    incinerators,    34.5, 
393-395 
revenue  from,  at  Glasgow,  394 
Coal    and    cinders,    chemical    analysis,    23, 

58-59 
Cob  well   reduction   process,    452-453,    481, 

484-486,  523 
Collection,  climate,  influence  on.  111 
"closed  system"'  for  garbage,  91 
complaints,  91,  93,  106,  159,  165 
contract  or  force  account,  3,  105,  151- 

156,  165 
cost,  106,  122-123,  145,  159,  195-230, 
619,  628-631 


638 


INDEX 


Collection,   cost,  based   on   man-hours  and 
ton-miles,  112,  165,  222 

factors  affecting,  112,  121,  195,  220 
data,  American  cities,  106,  147-149 

European  cities,  149,  160-161 
dead  animals,  215,  613-615 
efficiency,    departmental,    34,    37,    39, 

44 
equipment,     108,     127-132,     165,    214, 

216-217 
frequency,  107-108,  112-115,  148,  160- 

161,  165,  208,  212,  214,  216,  225, 

227,  229,  628 
grades  of  streets,  influence  of,  111-112 
haul,  length  of,  121-122,  130,  157 
improper  conditions,  91 
location  of  can,  86-88,  109,  117,  627 
materials,  character  of,  111 
methods,  106,  108 
night-soil,  215,  606-609,  617 
operation,   contract    or    city  force,    3, 

105,  151-156,  165 
private  collection,  159-160,  165,  222 
scavenger  system,  151-152 
ordinances,  115,  581-584 
organization,  150-152 
pavements,  influence  of.  111 
people,  effect  of  character  on,  110 
quantities  of  materials,  110-111 
per  house,  122,  123 
proportions  of  constituent  materials, 

42,  44 
records,  importance  of,  165 
routing  the  wagons,  156-158,  165,  216- 

217 
separation    of    refuse,    42,    82-83,    91, 

94-95,  110 
small  towns,  620-625 
snow,  596-597,  604 
specifications,  155-156,  162-164 
speed  rate,  121-122 
stable  refuse,  576-578,  581-584 
statistics,  standard  form,  233 
street  refuse,  597-602 
technical  boards,  160,  562-563 
time  of  collection,   108,   119,   158-159, 

165,  602 
time  studies,  87,  115-119,  121 
uniforms  for  men,  106,  151,  621 
vehicles,     number    required,     123-132, 

600-601,  620-621 
Colne,  England,  incinerator,  360 
Cologne,  Germany;    collection,  113,  161 
incinerator,  334,  345-346 
plowing  into  soil,  252 
refuse,  70 
Columbus,  Ohio;   ashes  and  rubbish,  28 
burial,  255-256 
cars,  170-172,  216-217 


Columbus,  Ohio;   collection,  106,   113,  158, 
213-214,  216-218,  224-225,229-230 
dead  animals,  614 
disposal,  106 

garbage,  14,  19,  22-23,  28,  40,  57 
grease,  22,  56,  454,  474,  541 
loading  station,  188-189,  217 
manure,  216,  569,  576-578,  583-584 
night-soil,  609 

reduction,  239,  453-454,  465,  467-469, 
473-474,    476,    488-490,    521-523, 
525,  536,  539-541 
sorting  plant,  306 
tankage,  454,  458-459,  474,  541 
transportation,  170,  200,  217-218 
Combustible  matter,  ofce  Chemical  analyses. 
Composition  of  refuse,  see  Physical  analyses. 
Conant,    E.     U.;     incinerator.    Savannah, 
408-411 
test,  380 
Construction  expenses,  dumping,  527 
garbage  furnaces,  515-516 
hog  farms,  268-270,  526,  630 
incinerators,    339-341,   410,    515,   517- 

521,  551-553 
plowing  into  soil,  527 
reduction  plants,  521-525,  551-552 
Contracts,  reduction  works,  502-510 

See  also  Specifications. 
Contract  versus  city  force  work,  3    105,  151- 

1.^)6,  165 
Conveyors,  291-292,  301,  303,  466,  480-486, 

489,  494-495,  .504 
Copenhagen,  Denmark;    refuse,  72-73 
Cost  estimating,  512-556 
construction,  515-527 
division  of  expense,  513-514 
engineering,  514-515 
European  data,  550,  554-555 
legal,  514-515 
operation,  527-541 
preliminary  estimates,  545-553 
valuations,  541-545 
Costs  of  materials  and  labor,  man-hours  as 
basis  of  estimating,  5,  44,  112,  165, 
222,  513,  5.55-556 
statistics,  standard  forms,  80,  222,  231- 

235 
war,  effects  on,  3,  5 
Coventry,  England;    incinerator,  422-426 
Curtis,    Walter    M.;     transportation,    cost, 
174-176 


Dallas,  Tex.;   street  refuse  receptacle,  599- 

600 
Dana,   R.   T.;     vehicles,   motor-driven   and 

horse-drawn,  176-177 


INDEX 


639 


Danville,  111.;    engineering,  preliminary  ex- 
pense, 514 
hog  farm,  283-284,  526 
report,  collection  and  disposal,  Greeley, 
18,  562-5G3 
Davenport,  Iowa;   land-fill,  250,  257 
Dayton,  Ohio;   ashes,  23 

ashes  and  rubbish,  20,  28,  31 
collection,  224 

engineering,  preliminary  expense,  514 
garbage,  14,  19,  22-23,  28,  31,  40,  57 
grease,  22 
reduction,  525,  536 
rubbish,  48 
transportation,  180 
Dead  animals,  72,  96,  612-617 
collection,  215,  613-615 
disinfection,  96 
disposal,  613-617 
acid  treatment,  615 
burial,  615,  623 
fertilizer,  615 
incineration,  615 
reduction,  614-616 
house  treatment,  96,  615 
quantities  (or  numbers),  72,  215,  613- 
614 
Decarie  Incinerator  Co.;    garbage  furnace, 
Minneapolis,  313,  413 
incinerator,  and  sorting  plant,  Roches- 
ter, 306 
Ridge  wood,  411-412 
Decatur,  III.;   collection    118    619 
Definitions  of  terms,  7-9,  80,  166,  261-262, 

314,  625-626 
De  Fodor;  refuse,  chemical  analysis,  Copen- 
hagen, 72-73 
sorting,  sanitary  aspects,  308,  310 
Delahanty  boat,  169 
Denver,  Colo.;   collection,  113 
hog  farm,  259,  274-275 
manure,  583 
De-soldering  and  de-tinning,  293-295 
Destructors,  see  Incinerators. 
Detroit,   Mich.;    collection,   106,   153,  210- 
211,  224,  229 
dumping  on  land,  248 
garbage,  28,  40 
grease,  32,  56,  457 
loading  stations,  167,  172,  187-188 
reduction   450 

transportation,  167,  172,  180,  182 
wagons,  182 
Digesters,  see  Reduction  plants. 
Diseases  of  hogs,  cholera,  261-265,  278,  289 
inoculation  against  cholera,  263-264 
foot-and-mouth  disease,  264-265 
pneumonia,  264 
Disinfection,  dead  animals,  96 


Disinfection,  garbage,  .88,  94,  114,  193 
cans,  88,  94,  628 
wagons,  114 
night-soil,  96,  607 
stable  refuse,  574-576 
Disposal,  actual  cost  of,  106 

estimating,  512-556,  567 
burial,  237-238,  252-257,  564,  615,  623 
dead  animals,  613-617 
European  data,  160- 161,  550,  554-555 
methods,  affected  by  length  of  haul,  121 
artificial   238-239,  290-511,  557-558, 

580-581,  603-604 
natural,  237-238,  240-289,  557,  580, 
603 
night-soil,  607-612,  617 
products  of  various  methods,  566 
relation  to  house  treatment  and  collec- 
tion, 109-110 
selection  of  method,  557-567 
controlling  elements,  558-559 
data  required,  563-564 
expediency,  565,  567 
influences  affecting,  557—558 
reports,  559-563 
small  towns,  620-634 
stable  refuse,  578-585 
statistics,  standard  form,  234-235 
street  refuse,  602-605 
war,  influence  of,  558 
Dixon,  Sam  W.;   garbage  furnace,  Ellwood, 
312 
Queens,  Borough,  313 
Dresden,  Germany;  street  refuse,  589,  596 
Driers,  see  Reduction  plants. 
Duff,  Edward  E.,  -Jr.;    transportation,  cost, 

Sewickley,  217,  220   628-629 
Duluth,  Minn.;  garbage  furnace,  527-528 
Dumping,  expenses,  construction,  527 
operation,  541 
for  small  towns.  623 
in  water,  169,  237,  240-243,  257,  564 

cost,  243 
on  land,   168,  237,  240,  243-249,  257, 
564 
cost,  168 
statistics,  standard  form,  234 
Dumps,  maintenance  cost,  243-249 
Durgin,    Dr.    S.    H.;     burning    garbage    in 

kitchen  range,  90 
Dust,  by-product  of  incinerators,  355,  367 
chemical  analyses,  23,  62 
street  dust,  588-590 

E 
Earth  closets,  96,  609 
Easton,  Pa.;  garbage  furnace,  516,  528 
Edgerton,  Charles;  Arnold  reduction  proc- 
ess, 449,  493 


640 


INDEX 


Edgerton,  Charles;  Arnold  reduction  proc- 
ess, Boston,  449 
roller  press,  468-  470,  489 
Edinburgh,  Scotland;  refuse,  70 
Edson  reduction  process,  451-452,  487-488 
Efficiency,     departmental,     effect     of,     on 
quantities  of  refuse  and  on  collec- 
tion, 34,  37,  39,  44 
separation,  efficiency  affected  by  degree 
of,  42 
Electrical  World,   The;    motor  trucks,  oper- 
ating costs,  200-201 
Electric    power    produced    at    incinerators, 
314,   347-349,   382,   384,   391-393, 
407,  417 
Engineering,  advice  and  management,  3 
investigation  necessary,  563-564 
preliminary  expense,  514 
Engle,     Andrew;      garbage     furnace,     Des 

Moines,  312 
English  c  ties;  refuse,  27,  42,  44,  78 
Erie,  Pa.;  garbage  furnace,  528 
European  cities;  dead  animals,  614-617 
night-soil,  617 
refuse,  27,  29,  70 
street  refuse,  596 
European  expense  data,  550,  554-555 
Evanston,  111.;  ashes,  28 

collection,  117,  121,  224,  228,  230 
garbage,  28 
motor  trucks,  186 
rubbish,  28 
Evaporators,  see  Reduction  plants. 
Everett,  Mass.;  ashes  and  rubbish,  37 
garbage,  37 

F 

Fermentation  of  garbage,  8 
Fertilizers,  chief  elements,  56 
dead  animals,  615 
fine  ashes  from  incinerator,  393 
ground-up  refuse,  239 
manure,  analyses,  570-571,  579,  590- 

593 
night-soil,  609 

street  refuse,  590-593,  602-603 
See  also  Tankage. 
Fetherston,    J.    T.;     chemical    analysis    of 
refuse,  60 
collection     and     disposal.     West     New 

Brighton,  14,  117,  205 
horses,  care  of,  143 
incinerators,  data  for  design,  363 
heat  balance,  363 
operation,  343-344 
West  New  Brighton,  397,  399-401 
street    refuse,    quantities.    West    New 

Brighton,  601 
See  also  Osborn  and  Fetherston. 


Fire-brick,  analyses,  325-327 
quahty,  325-326 
specifications,  438 
Fisher,    Edwin   A.;     report,    collection   and 

disposal,  Rochester,  13 
Flagstones,  by-product  of  incineration,  395- 

396 
Flies,  breeding,  89,  570-576 
experiments,  573-574 
wrapping    in    paper     a    preventive, 
89-90 
catching,  89,  574-576 
germicides,  246,  574-576 
maggots,  destruction,  246,  573-576 
traps,  246,  574-  576 
Food,  effect  of  conservation  on  quantity  and 
quality  of  garbage,  39-42 
effect  of    prices  on  quantity  of  refuse, 
39-43 
Fort  Douglas,  Utah;    garbage  furnace,  516 
Fort  Wayne,  Ind. ;    garbage  furnace,  320 
Foster,  E.  H.;  incinerator  test,  Atlanta,  388 
Fox,  Richard  T. ;   street  dust,  analysis,  588- 

589 
Frankfort,  Germany;    collection,  113 
incinerator,  334,  343,  366,  554-555 
refuse,  70,  78 
street  refuse,  604 
transportation,  170,  193 
Fryer,  Alfred;    introduces  municipal  incin- 
eration, 311 
Fuel  briquettes  made  from  refuse,  239 
Fulham,  England;  incinerator,  340,  344-345 

G 

Galesburg,  111.;    report,  collection  and  dis- 
posal, Greeley,  18 
Garbage,  alcohol  recovered  from,  239,  453- 
454 

acid  treatment,  251-252 

benefits  of  mixing  with  ashes,  89 

burned  in  gas  ovens,  90 

cans,  82,  84-89 

chemical    analyses,    15,    22-23,    26-27, 
54-69,  76 

"closed  system"  of  collecting,  91 

cold  storage,  91 

disinfection,  88,  94,  114,  193 

fermentation,  8 

freezing,  effect  on  weight,  46 

grinding  {hroyage),  239 

house  treatment,  44,  46,  81-103,  625 

moisture  (free),  53-55 

poultry  food  made  from,  239 

proportion  in  house  refuse,  27,  34,  42,  44 

quantities,    13,    17,    19,   21,   27-31,   33, 
40,  42-43,  45,  75-76,  215 
decrease  in,  and  effects  on  methods  of 
disposal,  40-42 


INDEX 


641 


Garbage,    quantities,    high    production    in 
Washington,  34 
in  manufacturing  and  in  residential 
cities,  37 
rainfall,  effect  on  weight,  44-45 
unit  weights,  13-14,  17,  27,  33,  37-38, 

44-46 
war  time  production,  40,  42-43 
wrapping  in  paper,  44,  46,  82-83,  89-91, 
625 
Garbage  and  ashes,  collection,  cost,  106 
Garbage  and  rubbish,  quantities,  28,  31 

unit  weight,  44 
Garbage  furnaces,  charging,   325,  350-351, 
412-413 
chimneys,  350,  352-361,  385 
combustion  chambers,  413 
costs,  average  range,  553 
operation,  527-529 
plant,  515-516 
design  and  construction,  323 
early  plants,  312-313 
labor,  527,  529 
Lewis  and  Kitchen,  325,  350-351,  412- 

413 
location,  320,  413 
temperatures,  376,  385,  413 
tests,  375-376,  380-385 
See  also  Incinerators. 
Gases,  volume  of  various,  317-320,  362-364 
Gembloux,  Belgium;  refuse,  73 
Geographical  location,  effect  on  quantities 

of  refuse,  27-29 
German  cities,  refuse,  78 
Glasgow,  Scotland;    incinerator,  394 
Glencoe,  111.;  ashes,  33 
collection,  629-632 
garbage,  33 
rubbish,  33 
Goodnough,   X.  H.;    report,   collection  and 

disposal,  Boston,  12 
Goodrich,    W.    F. ;      de-soldering    and    de- 
tinning,  294-295 
incinerator,     by-products,     utilization, 
391-397 
clinker,  391 
paving  blocks,  395 
coal  saving,  346-347 
electrical  power,  347 
forced  draft,  355 
proximity  to  dwellings,  320 
repairs,  343-343 
Watford,  419-420 
refuse,  physical  analysis,  Melbourne,  79 
Shang-hai,  74 
Grades  of  streets,  effect  on  collection,  111- 

112 
Grand  Rapids,  Mich.;    collection,  106,  224 
garbage,  40 


Grand  Rapids,  Mich.;   hog  farm,  259,  275- 
277,  281,  288 
transportation,  180 
Grease,  analyses,  22,  56,  67-09,  456,  500 
chemistry  of,  455-457 
contracts,  497-499 
market  prices,  540 

quantities  in  garbage,  15,  22,  27,  32,  56, 
67-69 
decrease,  41-42,  457 
recovered,  22,  452,  454,  457,  474-478 
Greeley,  Samuel  A.;   burial  of  garbage,  256- 
257 
chemical  analysis,  garbage,  Milwaukee, 

54 
collection,  time  studios,  Chicago,  117 
Lake  Forest,  117-118 
Louisville,  117 
hog  farm,  estimated  cost,  Toledo,  269- 
270 
hog  houses,  Danville,  283-284 
Winnetka,  283-284 
incinerators,     charging     methods     and 

costs,  328-349 
moisture  test,  garbage,  Milwaukee,  54 
report,  collection  and  disposal,  Chicago, 
15 
Danville,  18,  562-563 
Galesburg,  18 
Lake  Forest,  117-118 
Louisville,  20,  117 
Winnetka  and  Glencoe,  629-632 
transportation,  costs,  180 
Greenock,   Scotland;    incinerator,   328-332, 
340,  342,  345,  348,  358,  424-426 
refuse,  70 

report,  disposal,  Robert.son,  26 
Gregory,  John,  H.,  see  Hering  and  Gregory. 


Hackney,    England;     incinerator,    344-345, 

347 
Halifax,  N.  S.;    incinerator,  324,  360,  370- 

371,  517 
Hall,    Dr.    P.    M.;     garbage,    draining   and 
wrapping  in  paper,  82-83 
garbage  furnace,  Minneapolis,  413 
manure,  disposal,  581-583 
Hamburg,   Germany;    collection,   113,   132, 
161 
incinerator,  311,  332-334,  342,  426-430 
refuse,  70,  78 

report,  disposal,  Meyer,  26 
street  refuse,  593,  596 
Harris,  manure,  analyses,  571,  579 
Hauling,  costs,  122,  143-144,  168,  174-180, 
197-198,  207,  221 
length  of  haul,  121-122,  130,  157 


642 


INDEX 


Hauling,  speed  rate,  121-122 

team  haul,  197 
Havana,  Cuba;   incinerator,  360,  517 
Havre,    France;     report,    disposal,    Lenor- 

mond,  26 
Herbertz;      incinerators,     charging    device, 
334-336 
operation,  338,  343 
Hereford,  England;    incinerator,  344,  346- 

347 
Hering,  Dr.  Rudolph;    Chairman,  Commit- 
tee on  Garbage  Disposal,  Am.  Pub. 
Health  Assoc,  2,  12 
collection,  method,  105 
dumping  in  water,  241 
incinerator,  Atlanta,  recommendation, 
385 
San  Francisco,  advice,  381 
report,    collection    and    disposal,    Mil- 
waukee, 13,  44,  559-560 
unit  weights,  refuse,  Milwaukee,  44 
See    also     Hering     and     Gregory     and 
Parsons,    Hering,   and   Whinery. 
Hering     and    Gregory;     reports,    collection 
and  disposal,  Dayton,  107 
Toronto,  548-549,  560-561 
Trenton,  12,  107,  549-552 
wagons,  number  required,  124-132 
Highland  Park,  111.;    hog  farm,  2;->9 
Hodge,  C.  F.;   fly  traps,  575 
Hog  farms  and  feeding,  advantages  and  dis- 
advantages, 286-287  . 
contracts,  287-288 
cost,  construction,  268-270,  526,  630 
operation,    269-271,    280-284,    526, 
541,  630 
data,  259,  281 

diseases  of  hogs,  261-265,  278,  289 
feeding  box,  276 
food  conservation,  41 
gain  in  weight  of  hogs,  278-279 
garbage,    cooking,    260-261,    266,    270, 
275,  277 
objectionable   materials   in,   88,   260, 

266,  271 
prices   paid   for,    272,   274-275,   277, 

281-282 
quality,  260,  266,  280-281 
value,  281 
houses,  273-286 
location,  279 

manure,  composting,  267-268,  274,  283 
methods  of  feeding,  258,  266-268,  271, 

275,  279-280 
number  of  animals,  259,  281-282 
pork,  quality,  272,  278,  282 

quantity,  282 
results,  265-278,  282 
sanitary  features,  286-287 


Hog  farms   and   feeding,  size  of  farm,  272- 
273,  275-276,  279 

for  small  towns,  621 

specifications,  287-288 

supplementary  food,  258,  277,  280,  283 
Holthaus  reduction  process,  450 
Holzbog  Co.,  wagons,  140-141 
Home,  Ralph  W.;    motor  trucks,  operating 

costs,  204 
Horses,  care  of,  143 

decreasing  number  in  cities,  146,  569- 
570 

economy  of,  143 

maintenance,  197-198 
House  treatment,  ashes,  91-95 

burning  refuse  at  the  house,  90,  621 

cans,  see  Receptacles. 

cards  of  instructions,  81,  97-103 

cold  storage,  91 

collection  systems,  83 

complaints,  91,  93 

dead  animals,  96,  615 

education  of  house  occupants,  81,  96 

flies,  89,  570-576 

field  investigations,  91-92 

garbage,  44,  46,  82-83,  89-95,  625 

improper  conditions,  91 

night-soil,  96,  609 

receptacles,  84-89 

relation  to  collection  and  disposal,  109- 
110 

refuse  from  sick  rooms,  83,  95-96 

rubbish,  91-95 

rules  and  regulations,  81,  97-103 

screening,  ashes,  89-90 

separation,  advantages,  etc.,  9,  69,  94- 
95 
degree  of,  82-83,  91,  94,  106 
difficult  to  secure,  42,  96-97 

in  small  towns,  625-627 

stable  refuse,  95,  573-574,  627  ' 

statistics,  standard  form,  233 

sweepings,  95 

trade  refuse,  95 
Houston,  Tex.;  collection,  226 
Howard,  L.  O.;  fly-breeding,  571-572 

fly  germicides,  575 

production  of  manure,  568 

"The  House  Fly,"  573 
Hughes  and  Sterling;   incinerator,  Berkeley, 

407 
Hull,  England;  incinerator,  360 
Huntington,  W.  Va.;    garbage  furnace,  385 
Husson,   Joseph:     motor   trucks,   operating 

costs,  201-203 
Hutchison,   Robert  H.;    fly  maggots,   573- 

574 
Hydrogen,  determination  of,  66 

See  also  Chemical  analyses. 


INDEX 


643 


Incineration  and  incinerators;    advantages 
and  disadvantages,  432 
air  supply,  315-316,  320-323,  350-360 
method  of  computing,  315—316,  350- 

353 
pre-heaters,  356-363,  399,  404 
temperatures,  353,  356-359 
analysis  of  refuse  necessary  for  design, 

57,  314-317,  388 
boilers,  359,  361-363,  365,  416 
buildings,  320-321,  397-398,  401,  404, 

407,  411,  416-417 
by-products,  bricks,  396-398 
clinker,  345,  393-395,  418 
dust,  355,  367 
flagstones,  395-396 
paving  blocks,  395 
steam,  314,  380,  391-393,  408,  416- 
418 
calorific  value  of  refuse,  70,  72,  78,  315- 
316,  361-363,  433-434 
determination,  66,  315-316,  361-363, 

433-434 
heat  balance,  361-363 
charging,  327-350,  402 
Berlit  device,  336-337 
cleanliness,  338-339,  348-349 
comparison  of  methods,  338-350 
construction,  339-341,  348-349 
efficiency,  343-349 
Hamburg  device,  332-334 
hand  charging,  337,  342,  348 
Herbertz  device,  334-336 
Horsfall  tub-feed,  328-332 
Lewis  and  Kitchen  apparatus,  350- 

351 
operation,  342-343 
rules  for  firemen,  388-390 
chimneys,  350,  352-361,  399,  401,  408 
computations,  353 
draft,  352-360 
clinker  and  ash  handling,  365-367,  394- 

395,  400-402,  404,  410 
coal  saving,  346—347 
combustion    chambers,    361,    364^365, 

399 
combustion   data,   314^320,   350,   352- 
363 
seasonal  variation,  60,  363 
comparison  of  working  elements,  Clif- 
ton and  West  New  Brighton,  388, 
390 
composition  of  refuse  burned,  18,  321,    , 
323-324,    338,    370-378,    381-382, 
385,  402-404 
costs,  average  range,  553 

operation,    342-343,    380-381,    414, 
418-420,  529-536,  631 


Incineration  and  incinerators;   costs,  plant, 
339-341,  410,  515,    517-521,    551- 
553 
repairs,  343-344 
for  small  towns,  631 
dead  animals,  615 
design  and  construction,  321-369 
development  in  America,  311 
draft,  fans,  354-358,  411,  416 
forced,  352-357,  360 
induced,  352,  356,  360,  388 
natural,  352-353,  360 
steam  jets,  354-358 
dust,  355,  367 
early  plants,  314 
efficiency,  343-345 
electric  power  produced  314,  347-349, 

382,  384,  391-393,  407,  417 
evaporation    obtained,    345-346,    362, 
369-374,   378,   382,   384-387,   392, 

407,  426,  431 
required,  314-315 

experimental  cell,  Hamburg,  332-334 
experimental  plant.  New  York,  313 
fire-brick,  analyses,  325-327 

quality,  325-326 

specifications,  438 
flues  and  furnace  accessories,  316,  361- 

365 
furnace  proper,  321-327,  399,  404,  407- 

408,  411,  416 

gases,    volume    and    weight,    317-320, 

362-364 
grab-buckets,  350,  407-408,  410 
grates,  399-401,  407^08,  410 
guaranties,  378,  381-386,  407,  410-411, 

416,  440-441 
Hamburg  plant,  426-430 
Heenan  and  Froude,  327-328,  408-411, 

416-419,  421-422,  431 
Horsfall,  328-332,  424-426,  428 
indicating  and  recording  instruments, 

439-440 
labor  to  operate,  342-343,  532-534 
schedules,  535-536,  550,  554-555 
location  of  plants,  317-321,  397 
manure,  burning,  580-581 
Meldrum,  327,  416-420,  431 
night-soil,  burning,  609 
Nye,  414-415 
odors,    368-369 
plants  built  and  results  obtained,  397- 

432 
quantities  burned,  29,    376,    392,    404, 

418 
rate  of  burning,  323-324,  370-371 
revenue  from  clinker,  394 
for  small  towns,  621-624,  628-631 
specifications,  434-441 


644 


INDEX 


Incineration  and  incinerators;  stable  refuse, 
burning,  580-581,  603-604 

statistics,  standard  form,  235 

steam,  uses  of,  314,  380,  391-393,  408, 
416-418 

storage,  142,  328-329,  399,  402,  408 

street  refuse,  burning,  603-604 

temperatures,    314,    361-362,    372-374, 
378-379,  386,  389,  412 

tests,  369-390,  411,  440-441 

Thackeray,  415-416 

ventilation,  367-369,  399 

See  also  Garbage  furnaces. 
Indianapolis,  Ind.;    collection,  106 

garbage,  40 

reduction,  451,  536 

transportation,  180 


Jacobs     and     Cenfield;       collection,     cost, 

Chicago,  207 
motor   trucks   and   tractors,   operating 

costs,  168,  175-180 
Jentzen,  John;    night-soil  wagon,  606,  608 
Jersey  City,  N.  J.;    manure,  582 
Jessup,  J.  J.;   incinerator,  Berkeley,  407 

test,  385 
Johnson,  E.  B. ;    night-soil  disposal  station, 

610-612 
Jones,    Col.;     incinerator,    additional    coal 

grate,  313 

K 

Kansas  City,  Mo.;   collection,  106 
garbage,  28 
manure,  581 
night-soil,  607,  609 
Kelvin,  Lord;    forced  draft,  354-355 
Kent,  William;    chimney  action,  353 

combustion,  315 
Kiel,  Germany;    incinerator,  334-336,  342, 
346 
refuse,  78 
street  refuse,  596 
Kilvington,  Dr.;    Chairman,  Committee  on 
Garbage     Disposal,     Am.     Public 
Health  Assoc,  2 
Kings  Norton,  England;    incinerator,    340, 
346 
refuse,  70-71 
Koppel  Industrial  Car  and  Equipment  Co. ; 
tank  cars,  170-171 


Lake  Forest,  111.;  collection,  117-118 
Land-fill,  costs,  249-250,  257 

disposal  by,  237,  248-251 

stable  refuse,  580 

street  refuse,  603 


Lansing,  Mich.;  hog  farm,  271-272 
Lawrence,  Mass.;    ashes  and  rubbish,  37 

garbage,  37 
Leamington,     England;      incinerator,     341, 

344,  347,  360 
Leask,     H.     Norman;      incinerators,     pre- 
heated air,  358 
repairs,  cost,  343-344 
Lederer,  Dr.  Arthur;   chemical  analysis  pro- 
cedure, 63-67 
Leeds,  England;    incinerator,  328,  330,  332, 

341-343 
Legal  expen.ses,  514-515 
Lenormond,    Dr.;     incinerators,    Hamburg, 
427 
Heenan  and  Froude  system,  327-328 

report  on  Havre,  26 
Levy,  Dr.  E.  C;    flies,  breeding,  572-573 

manure,  disposal,  Richmond,  582 
Lewis,  S.  R.;  garbage  furnaces,  325,  350-351 

Huntington,  385 

mechanical  stoking,  313 

Racine,  375-376 

Topeka,  380,  412-413 
Liversedge,  England;  incinerator,  360 
Loading,  cost,  196-197,  200,  207,  221 
Loading   stations,    148,    166-169,    172-174, 
187-193,  208-210,  221,  241-242 

cost,  191,  198,  210,  217,  221 

economical  location,  168 

statistics,  standard  form,  235 
London,  England;   ashes,  75 

coUection,  87,  113,  117,  160 

garbage,  75 

incinerators,  320,  395 

refuse,  70-71,  79 

rubbish,  48,  50,  75 
London,  Ont.;  collection,  226-229 
Los  Angeles,  Cal.;   collection,  113,  217,  219, 
224,  230 

garbage,  14,  22,  28,  40 

grease,  22 

reduction,  452,  474-476,  484r-486,  525, 
540 

rubbish,  14,  28 

transportation,  217,  219 
Louisville,  Ky.;   ashes  and  dirt,  26 

collection,  117,  121,  227 

dump,  244-245,  249 

engineering,  preliminary  expense,  514 

garbage,  26 

hog  farm,  259,  281 

house  treatment,  91-92 

refuse,  20,  26 

report,  collection  and  disposal,  Greeley, 
20 

rubbish,  26 
Lowell,  Mass.;    ashes  and  rubbish,  28 

garbage,  28 


INDEX 


645 


Lowestoft,  England;   incinerator,  360 
Lynn,  Mass. ;    ashes  and  rubbish,  28,  37 

garbage,  28,  37 
Lytham,    England;     incinerator,    340,    344, 
347,  360 

M 
Madison,  Wis. ;  hog  farm,  259 
Maiden,  Mass. ;  ashes  and  rubbish,  37 

garbage,  37     '? 
Manchester,  England;  collection,  117 

incinerator,  340,  344 

refuse,  79 
Manchester,  N.  H.;  ashes  and  rubbish,  37 

garbage,  37 
Manhattan,  Borough  of;  ashes,  13-15 

collection,  106,  206 

garbage,  13—15 

rubbish,  13-15 

street  dust,  590 

street  refuse,  45-46,  205-206,  590-593, 
597-598,  603 

See  also  New  York. 
Manure,  burial,  252 

chemical  analyses,  570-571,  579,  590- 
593 

collection,  216,  576-584 

composting,  267-268,  274,  283,  578-579 

disposal,  578-581 

house  treatment,  95,  573-574 

quantities,  216,  568-570,  584-585 

statistics,  standard  form,  235 

unit  weight,  44,  569,  590,  593-596 

See  also  Stable  refuse;    Street  refuse. 
Massachusetts     Institute     of     Technology; 

vehicles,  operating  costs,  177 
Maxwell,    W.    H. ;     garbage    deposited    in 
Ancient  Rome,  240 

incinerators,    flagstones    from    clinker, 
396 

.     forced  draft,  354 
May,  Arthur;    burning  refuse  at  the  house, 
90 

collection,  time  studies,  117 
Mechanical  analyses,  see  Physical  analyses. 
Melbourne,  Victoria;  refuse,  79 
Memphis,  Tenn. ;   trailers,  167 

transportation,  167 
Merz  reduction  process,  444,  448—449 
Metcalf,     Leonard;      valuation,     reduction. 

plant,  Chicago,  542-545 
Meyer,  F.  Andreas;    incinerator,  Hamburg, 
311,  426 

report,  refuse  disposal,  Hamburg,  26 
Miami,  Fla.;  collection,  145,  226 

incinerator,  414 

motor  trucks,  145 
Milwaukee,  Wig.;  ashes,  28,  44-45,  62 

ashes  and  rubbish,  28,  30-31 


Milwaukee,  Wis.;  burial,  254-255 

collection,  87,   106,   113,  115-116,  121, 

132,    153,    157-158,   211-214,   224, 

229 
dead  animals,  614 
disposal,  106 
dumping  in  water,  241 

on  land,  248-249 
engineering,  preliminary  expense,  514 
garbage,  14,   22,  28,  30,  44-45,  53-54, 

62 
garbage  and  rubbish,  44 
garbage  furnace,  516,  528 
grease,  22 
incinerator,  29,  314,  317,  321-322,  324, 

326,  354,  358-360,  365,  368,  370- 

371,    374-375,    388-393,    517-519, 

530,  532-535,  580-581 
loading  station,  191 
manure,  44,  569-570,  580-581 
rainfall,  efifect  on  weight  of  ashes  and 

garbage,  44—45 
report,  collection  and  disposal,  Hering, 

13,  559 
rubbish,  28,  44,  62 
rules  and  regulations,  100 
transportation,  169-170,  213-214 
Minneapolis,  Minn. ;     ashes  and  rubbish,  28 

31 
collection,  106,  113,  158 
disposal,  106 
garbage,  28,  31,  46 
garbage  furnace,  313,  413,  516,  527 
grease,  56 
hog  farm,  259,  281 
manure,  581 

rules  and  regulations,  101 
transportation,  172 
Mixed  refuse,  advantages  of,  9,  69,  94 
chemical  analyses,  23,  26,  58-59 
combustion    data,    seasonal    variation, 

60,  363 
grinding  (Jbroyage),  239 
unit  weight,  70 
Moisture,    free,    in    garbage;     compression 

tests,  53-55 
determination  of,  63,  65 
effect  on  weight,  46 
See  also  Chemical  analyses  and  Physical 


Montclair,  N.  J.;   rules  and  regulations,  103 
Montgomery,  Ala.;    incinerator,  360,  517 

night-soil  disposal  station,  609-612 
Montreal,  Que.;    incinerator,  415-416 
Morgan,  Dr.  J.  J.;    alcohol  from   garbage, 

239,  453-454 
Moss  Side,  England;   incinerator,  360 
Motor  trucks,  119-120,  143-147,  149,  151, 
174-189,  197,  217,  220-222 


646 


INDEX 


Motor  trucks,  analysis  of  use,  175-180 

cost  of  operation,    146,    174-187,    197, 

200-204,  207-208,  217,  219-222 
haulage  charges,  178-187,  222 
Moule,  Rev.  Henry;    earth  closet,  96 
Muskogee,  Okla. ;  garbage  furnace,  516,  528 

N 
Nashville,  Tenn. ;   ashes  and  rubbish,  28 

garbage,  28 
Nationality,  effect  of  —  on  production  of 

refuse,  33,  38 
Nelson,  England;   incinerator,  346,  396-398 
Newark,  N.  J.;   hog  farm,  259,  272-274,  281 
New  Bedford,  Mass.;  ashes  and  rubbish,  28, 
37,  40 
garbage,  28,  37,  40 
reduction,  450 
Newcastle,  England;   incinerator,  328,  330, 
340,  342,  345 
refuse,  70 
New  Haven,  Conn.;    collection,  224-225 
New  Orleans,  La.;   collection,  106 
dumping  in  water,  169 
land-fill,  250 
transportation,  169,  172 
Newton,  Mass.;  ashes  and  rubbish,  37 

garbage,  37 
New  York,  N.  Y.;  ashes,  13-14.  16,  28,  42, 
45-46,  62,  75 
ashes  and  cinders,  65 
ashes  and  rubbish,  28,  51 
coal  and  cinders,  23 
collection,  113,  1-53,  205-206,  225 
dumping  in  water,  169,  241-243 
garbage,   13-15,  22-23,  27-28,  40,  42, 

45-46,  53-55,  62,  65,  75 
grease,  22,  27 
horses,  569 
incinerator,  313 
land-fill,  603 

loading  station,  187-188,  190 
motor  trucks,  180-185 
reduction,  see  Barren  Island  and  Staten 

Island, 
refuse,  433-434 

report,  collection  and  disposal.  Waring, 

12 

street   cleaning  and  refuse  disposal, 

Parsons,  Hering,  and  Whinery,  13 

rubbish,   13-14,  23,  28,  42,  45-46,  50, 

62-63,  65 
scows,  169,  190,  242 
sorting  plants,  292,  299-303 
tankage,  27 

transportation,  166,  169 
See   also   Boroughs   of   Brooklyn,    The 
Bronx,    Manhattan,    Queens,    and 
Richmond. 


Niedner,   Franz;    street  refuse,  quantities, 

European  cities,  596 
Night-soil,  burial,  252,  623 

collection,  215,  606-609,  617 
cost,  215,  607 

disposal,  607-612,  617 
station,  609-612 

disinfection,  96,  607 

earth  closets,  96,  609 

fertilizer,  609 

house  treatment,  96,  609 

incineration,  609 

quantities,  215,  606-607 

receptacles,  96,  609 

wagon,  606-608 
Nitrogen,  see  Chemical  analyses. 
Norfolk,  Va.;  garbage  furnace,  527 
Norton,  George  H.;    sorting,  costs,  Buffalo, 
305-306 

sanitary  aspects,  308—309 
Nuremberg,  Bavaria;  land-fill,  251 

O 

Oak  Forest,  111.;  garbage  furnace,  516 
Oak  Park,  lU.;    garbage  furnace,  320,  516, 

528 
Odors,  368-369,  460-465,  471 
Ohio  cities;    report,  collection  and  disposal, 
Pratt,  15 
See  also  under  names  of  cities. 
Ohio  State  Board  of  Health;    burial  of  gar- 
bage, 255-256 
sorting,  health  hazards,  309 
Omaha,  Nebr.;  collection,  106 

hog  farm,  259,  282 
Operating  expenses,  burial,  541 
dumping,  541 
garbage  furnaces,  527-529 
hog  feeding,  541 

incinerators,  342-343,  529-536,  631 
plowing  into  soil,  541 
reduction,  477-478,  536-541 
Ordinances,   for  small  towns  and  villages, 
625-627,  629 
stable  refuse,  care  of,  576-578,  581-584 
Osborn  and  Fetherston;    report,  collection 
and  disposal,  Chicago,  15,  107-108, 
154-155,  545-548,  561-562 
physical  analyses,  standard  method,  47 
wagons,  number  required,  124-132 
Osborn  and  Klein;    odors,  reduction  works, 

Barren  Island,  461-465 
Osborn,  I.  S. ;    disposal,  Washington,  18 

garbage,  decreased  quantities,  effect  on 

disposal,  40-41 
incinerator,  Toronto,  419 
loading  station,  Columbus,  188—189 
motor   truck  transportation,   Toronto, 
216 


INDEX 


647 


Osborn,  I.  S. ;   reduction  plant,    Columbus, 
488-490 
processes,  classification,  445-446 
valuation,  reduction  plant,  Rochester, 

545 
war,  influence  on  garbage  production. 

40-41 
See  also  Osborn  and  Fetherston;    and 
Osborn  and  Klein. 
Ottawa,  Ont.;    collection,  148,  227 
Oxygen  required  for  combustion,  see  Com- 
bustion data. 


Paris,  France;  collection,  113,  161 
incinerators,  428,  431 
night-soil,  609 
refuse,  70-72 
sorting,  290 
transportation,  193 
Parsons,  H.  de  B.;    classification  of  refuse, 
10-11 
transportation    in    scows,     cost.     New 

York,  205 
unit  weights  of  refuse,  46 
See  also  Parsons,  Hering,  and  Whinery. 
Parsons,   Hering,   and   Whinery;     dumping 
refuse  at  sea,  241 
moisture    tests,    garbage.    New    York, 

53-55 
report,  street  cleaning  and  refuse  dis- 
posal. New  York,  13 
street  dust,  589-591 
street  refuse,  analyses,  New  York,  591- 
593 
quantities,  594-595 
Pasadena,  Cal.;    garbage  furnace,  516,  528 
Paterson,  N.  J.;    ashes  and  rubbish,  28 
collection,  222,  227 
dumps,  249 
garbage,  28 
incinerator,  349-350,  360,  366,  370-371, 

517,  535 
motor  trucks,  222 
Pavements,  cleaning,  586-587,  590-593 

effect  on  collection.  111 
Paving  blocks,   by-product  of  incinerators, 

395 
Peck,  E.  S.;  drier,  487 

percolator,  488 
Percolators,  see  Reduction  plants. 
Petermann  and  Richard;    household  refuse, 
anlaysis,  Brussels,  73 
Gembloux,  73 
street  refuse,  analysis,  Brussels,  592 
Philadelphia,  Pa.;    collection,  106,  113,  156, 
207-208 
garbage,  28,  40 
loading  station,  173- 174 


Philadelphia,  Pa.;   motor  trucks,  207-208 

reduction,  540 

transportation,  173-174,  207 
Phosphoric  acid,  determination  of,  67-68 

See  also  Chemical  analyses. 
Physical  analyses,  24-25,  34,  47-53,  71-72, 
74-75,  77,  79 

proportions  of  constituent  materials  of 
refuse,  17,  34,  42,  44 

method,  standard,  47-53 

statistics,  standard  form,  232 

See  also  under  names  of  materials. 
Pittsburgh,  Pa.;  collection,  225,  230 

garbage,  40 

night-soil,  609 

rubbish,  28 

transportation,  172,  180 
Plainfield,  N.  J.;   collection,  87 
Plowing  into  soil,  237,  252-253,  527,  541 
Plymouth,  England;    refuse,  72 
Poplar,  London,  England;   incinerator,  550, 

554-555 
Pork,  quality,  272,  278,  282 

quantity,  282 
Portland,  Ore.;  collection,  106 

hog  farm,  259,  281 

incinerator,  530 
Portsmouth,  Va.;   garbage  furnace,  528 
Potash,  determination  of,  68 

See  also  Chemical  analyses. 
Power  Specialty  Co. ;  incinerators,  Atlanta, 
371,  385-386,  388 

Clifton,  380 

Milwaukee,  370 

Paterson,  370-371 

San  Francisco,  370-371,  381 

West  New  Brighton,  369 
Pratt,   R.   W. ;    report,   collection  and  dis- 
posal, Ohio  cities  and  towns,  15 
Preliminary  estimates,  545-553 
Presses,  see  Reduction  plants. 
Primrose,  John;    motor  trucks,  Boston,  174 
Providence,  R.  I.;  collection,  106,  225 

hog  farm,  259 
Puchheim,   Germany;    sorting  plant,  307- 
308 

Q 

Qualities   of   waste   materials,   affected   by 

war,  3,  40-41 
Quantities,  affected  by  war,  37,  39-42 

factors  influencing,  3,  27,  29-45,  110- 
111 

statistics,  standard  form,  232 

variations,  17-21,  27-43 

See  also  under  names  of  materials. 
Queens,  Borough  of;  ashes,  45 

collection,  106 

garbage,  45 


648 


INDEX 


Queens,  Borough  of;    garbage  furnaces,  313 
rubbish,  45 
street  refuse,  45,  594 
See  also  New  York. 

R 

Racine,   Wis.;     garbage   furnace,    375-370, 

516,  528 
Rainfall,  effect  of,  on  weight  of  ashes,  44-45 

garbage,  44-45 
Ramsgate,  England;    incinerator,  360 
Rankine,  Pa.;   garbage  furnace,  528 
Receptacles,  for  ashes  and  rubbish,  84,  86 
bins,  84,  172-173 
cans,  cleaning,  88,  628 
covers,  84-86 
disinfection,  88,  94,  628 
location,  86-88,  109,  117,  627 
number,  82 
ownership,  88-89 
size,  84 

underground,  84-85 
night-soil,  96,  609 
stable  refuse,  573 
street  refuse,  597-601 
''ecords,  erroneous,  10 

improved — desirable,  3,  44,  165,  222 
necessary  for  comparing  contract  with 
city  force  work,  3 
for  selection  of  disposal  method,  563 
standard  forms,  80,  231-235 
deduction  plants  and  process,  advantages 
and  disadvantages  of  process,  501- 
502 
air  heaters,  507 
alcohol  recovery,  239,  453-454 
Arnold  process,  449-450,  493-494 
boilers,  476-477,  483 
buildings,   465-466,  481,  487-488,  504, 

506 
Chamberlain  process,  450-451,  497,  499 
Chicago  process,  453,  491-493 
chimneys,  476,  483 
Cobwell  process,  452-453 
contracts,  502-510 
conveyors,    466,   480-486,  489,  494- 

495,  504 
cooking,  445-446 
costs,  average  range,  553 
by  contract,  540 
construction,  521-525,  551-552 
operation,  477^78,  536-541 
crushers,  466,  490,  504 
dead  animals,  614-616 
design  and  construction,  465-477 
digesters,  466-467,  487,  489,  495,  505 
driers,  453,  471-472,  487-488,  490-492, 

505,  507 
drying,  445-446 


Reduction  plants   and  process,  dust  cham- 
bers, 507 
Edson  process,  451-452,  487-488 
evaporators,  473,  490,  505 
fundamental  considerations,  445—447 
garbage,  quantities  treated,  475 
grease,  analyses,  22,  56,  67-69,  456,  500 
contracts,  497-499 
market  pricees,  540 
quantities   recovered,    22,   452,    454, 
457,  474,  478 
Holthaus  process,  450 
indicating  and  recording  instruments, 

508 
location  of  plants,   447-448,   478-480, 

486,  488,  494 
labor.  537-539,  541 
Merz  process,  444,  448-449 
miscellaneous  processes,  453-454 
odors,  460-465,  471 
operation,  477-478 
percolators,  473-474,  488,  496,  501 
plants  built,  478-501 
presses,  467-471,  489,  495,  505 
screens,  474,  506 
scrubbers,  506 
separators,  472-473,  482,  488-489,  495, 

505 
shipping  facilities,  476 
Simonin  process,  449 
solvents,  457-458 
loss  of,  473-474 
statistics,  standard  form,  235 
storage,  476,  484,  490,  49.    505,  507-508 
tankage  analyses,  22 
contracts,  497-499 
market  prices,  540 
quantities   recovered,    22,   452,    454, 
474,  478 
valuations,  541-545 
ventilation,  461,  504,  507 
waste  gases,  460-465,  471 

liquids,  analyses,  459-460 
water  supply,  474^76 
Wiselogel  process,  451 
Refuse,  burning  at  house,  90 

calorific  value,  70,  72,  78,  315-316,  361- 

363,  433-434 
chemical  analyses,  18,  20,  23,  26,  54-73, 

75 
classification,  10-11 
combustion     temperatures,      314-320, 

350,  352-363 
composition,  47-69,  111 
fuel,  briquettes,  239 

value,  60 
house  treatment,  81—103 
physical  analyses,   24-25,   34,   47,   51, 
71-72,  74-75,  77,  79 


INDEX 


649 


Refuse,   physical  analyses,   proportions  of 

constituent  materials,  17,  34,  42,  44 

quantities,    13,    25,    28-36,    45,    70-72, 

75-76,  215 

effect  of  character  of  population,  30, 

no 

climate,  46,  111 

departmental  efficiency,  34,  39 

geof^raphical  location,  27,  29 

nationality,  33,  38 

season,   17,  20,  29-32,  42,  49,  74, 
76-77 

war.  3,  39-43 
in  Europe   and   America   compared, 

111 
separation,  9,  42,  69,  82-83,  91,  94-97, 

106,  110,  148,  558-559,  625-627 
from  sick  rooms,  83,  95-96 
statistics,  standard  form,  231 
steam  production,   314,   380,   391-393, 

408,  416-418 
unit  weight,   14,   17-18,  27,  33,  37-38, 

44-46,  53,  70 
See  also  Stable  refuse;    Street  refuse. 
Regina,  Assin.;    loading  station,  191 
Reilly,     Lieut.     H.    J.;     garbage    furnace, 

Governors  Island,  312 
Delay  stations,  see  Loading  stations. 
I'enk,  Dr.;  street  dust,  589 
^leports  on  collection,  disposal,  etc.;   Berlin, 

Bohm  and  Crohn,  26 
Boston,  Goodnough,  12 
Brooklyn,  Taylor  and  Locke,  12 
Buffalo,  Landreth,  12 
Charlottenburg,  Thiesing,  26,  69 
Chicago,    Osborn  and   Fetherston,    15, 

545-548,  561-562 
Danville,  Greeley,  18,  562-563 
Galesburg,  Greeley,  18 
Greenock,  Robertson,  26 
Hamburg,  Meyer,  26 
Havre,  Lenormond,  26 
Louisville,  Greeley,  20 
Milwaukee,  Bering,  13,  559 
New  York,  Parsons,  Hering  and  Whin- 

ery,  13 
Waring,  12 
Ohio  cities,  Pratt,  15 
Rochester,  Fisher,  13 
San  Francisco,  Hering,  15 
Seattle,  Thomson,  12 
Toronto,  Hering  and  Gregory,  548-549, 

560-561 
Trenton,  Hering  and  Gregory,  12,  549- 

552 
Washington,  Osborn,  18 
West  New  Brighton,  Fetherston,  14 
Richmond,  Borough  of;    ashes,  14,  45 
ashes  and  rubbish,  51 


Richmond,  Borough   of;   coal  and   cinders, 
58-59 
collection,  106 
disposal,  106 
dumps,  249 
garbage,  14,  45 
rubbish,  14,  45,  47,  51 
street  refuse,  45,  205,  594 
See  also   New   York;    Clifton;     Staton 
Island;    and  West  New  Brighton. 
Richmond,  Va.;    garbage  furnace,  529 

manure,  582 
Richter;       refuse,      European     continental 

cities,  27 
Rider    Company;     garbage    furnace,    Alle- 
gheny City,  312 
Ridgewood,    N.    Y.;     incinerator,    370-371, 

388-389,  411-412 
Robertson,  J.  A.;    incinerators,  draft,  354 
pre-heatiiig  air,  358 
report,  collection  and  disposal,  Green- 
ock, 20 
Rochester  Can  Co. ;    garbage  and  ash  cans, 

84-86 
Rochester,  N.  Y.;    ashes,  28 

collection,  106,  113,  132,  225,  228,  230 

dumps,  249 

garbage,  14,  28,  40,  46 

manure,  582-583 

reduction,  452,  523,-525,  540,  545 

report,  collection  and  disposal,  Fisher, 

13 
rubbish,  14,  28 
sorting  plant,  306 
Ross   and    Holgate;     incinerator,   electrical 

output,  Westmount,  417-418 
Ross,    Edward    H.;     'The    Destruction   of 

Domestic  Flies,"  573 
Rubbish,  burning  on  the  premises,  90 
chemical  analyses,  23,  26,  58-63,  65 
collection,  cost,  106 
data,  106 

in  small  towns,  622 
house  treatment,  91,  94-96 
physical  analyses,  25,  47-53 
quantities,    13,    17,   28-31,   33,   35,   45, 
75-76 
proportion  in  house  refuse,  34,  42 
unit  weights,  13-14,  33,  37,  44,  46 
war  time  production,  42 
Ruednitz,  Germany;  dead  animals,  616-617 
Rules  and  regulations,  81,  97-103 


St.  Albans,  England;   incinerator,  348,  421- 

422 
St.  Joseph,  Mo.;    collection,  106 
St.  Louis,  Mo.;  collection,  225 
dump,  244-245 


650 


INDEX 


St.  Louis,  Mo.;   garbage,  28 
hog  farm,  259,  281 
loading  station,  241-242 
reduction,  476 
St.  Paul,  Minn.;   dump,  249 
garbage,  28,  42-43 
hog  farm,  259,  281 
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah;  collection,  113 
hog  farm,  259,  276-278 
loading  station,  174 
separation  of  refuse,  110 
transportation,  174 
Saltley,  England;    incinerator,  341-342,  345 
San  Antonio,  Tex.;  collection,  226 
San  Francisco,  Cal.;  ashes,  14,  28 
collection,  106 

engineering,  preliminary  expense,  514 
garbage,  14,  28 
incinerator,  18,  349-350,  360,  370-371. 

381-385,  437-441, -517 
refuse,  14,  18,  23 
report,  collection  and  disposal,  15 
rubbish,  14,  28 
Savannah,  Ga. ;  dumps,  249 

incinerator,  314,  324,  349-350,  355,  360, 
366,    370-371,    378-381,    408-411, 
517,  519,  530,  536 
Schaffer    Tinware   Mfg.    Co.,   garbage   can, 

85-86 
Schenectady,   N.    Y.;    reduction,  467,   476, 

499-501,  524-525 
Scows,  169-170,  190,  193,  213,  241-243 
Scranton,  Pa.;  garbage  furnace,  516 
Seasonal  effect,  on    calorific  value  of    gar- 
bage, 18,  57-60,  363 
chemical  composition,  32,  57-61,  64 
combustion,  60,  363 
quantities  of  refuse,  17,  20,  29-32,  42, 
49,  74,  76-77 
Seattle,  Wash.;  collection,  106,  227 
disposal,  106 

incinerator,  324,  327,  340,  342,  346,  360, 
370-371,    375-376,    517,    519-520, 
530 
motor  trucks,  182 

report,  collection  and  disposal,  Thom- 
son, 12 
transportation,  174 
Separation  of  refuse,  advantages  and  disad- 
vantages, 9,  69,  94-95 
in  American  cities,  106,  110,  148 
city  ordinances,  97,  625-627 
degree  of,  82-83,  91,  94,  106 
difficult     among      the     less     educated 

classes,   42,   96-97 
eflSciency  of  collection  affected  by,  42, 

82-83,  91,  94,  110 
method  of  disposal  affected  by,  558-559 
Serum,  definition,  262 


Sewickley,  Pa.;    collection,  217,  220,  628- 
629 

garbage  furnace,  528 

transportation,  217,  220 
Shanghai,  China;  refuse,  74,  79 
Sheffield,  England;  refuse,  70 
Shoreditch,  England;  incinerator,  341,  345 
Simonin  reduction  process,  449 
Simons,  Seward  C;    reduction  plant,   Los 

Angeles,  484-486 
Small  towns,  collection  and  disposal,  620- 
634 

house  treatment,  625-627 

incineration,  621-624,  628-631 

ordinances,  625-627,  629 

results  in  practice,  628-632 

State  laws,  619-620 
Snow,  collection,  596-597,  604 
cost,  205 

disposal,  604 
Somerville,  Mass.;    ashes  and  rubbish,  37 

garbage,  37 
Sommer,  Professor;    chemical  analysis,  gar- 
bage, Milwaukee,  54 

moisture     test,     garbage,     Milwaukee, 
53-54 
Sorting,  238,  290-310 

baling  presses,  292-293 

buildings,  291-295,  303 

conveyors,  291-292,  301,  303 

cost  of  plant,  300-308 

de-soldering  and  de-tinning,  293-295 

experimental  plant,  New  York,  299-300 

incinerator    as    an    adjunct,    291,    304, 
496 

materials  recovered,  295-308 

market  values,  297-299,  304-305 
uses,  295-297 

punching  machines,  293-294 

receiving  arrangements,  291,  303 

sanitary  features,  290,  308-310 

shipment,  295 

in  small  towns,  622,  630 

storage,  292,  295 

tin  can  presses,  293 
Southport,  England;  incinerator,  360 
Specifications,  collection,  155-156,  162-164 

fire-brick,  438 

guaranties,  440-441 

hog  farms,  287-288 

incinerators,  434-441 

indicating  and  recording  instruments, 
439-440,  508 

reduction  plants,  502-510 

tests  of  incinerators,  369-390,  411,  440- 
441 

transportation,  191-193 
Spokane,  Wash.;   collection,  225,  228,  230 

garbage  furnace,  516,  528 


INDEX 


651 


Springborn,  W.  J.;    Edson  process,  Cleve- 
land, 452,  487 
valuation,  reduction  plant,  Rochester, 
545 
Springfield,  Mass.;    ashes  and  rubbish,  28 
garbage,  28 

rules  and  regulations,  97-98 
Stable  refuse,   chemical  analsyes,   570-571, 
579 
collection,  576-578,  581-584 
cost,   584 
equipment,  578 
frequency,  576-577,  581-585 
composting,  267-268,  283,  578-579 
disinfection,  574-576 
disposal,  578-585 
fertilizer,  578-580 
land-fill,  580 

incineration,  580-581,  603-604 
flies  and  fly  breeding,  570-576 
experiments,  573-574 
germicides,  574-576 
traps,  573-576 
horses,    decreasing    number    in    cities, 

569-570 
house  treatment,  95,  573-574,  627 
materials,  nature  of,  568-576 
ordinances,  576-578,  581-584 
receptacles,  573 
results  in  practice,  581-584 
in  small  towns,  623,  630 
statistics,  standard  form,  235 
unit  weight,  569 
See  also  Manure. 
State  laws,  small  towns  and  villages,  619— 

620 
Staten  Island,  N.  Y.;  collection,  117 
reduction,  452,  478-484,  524 
See   also   Borough   of    Richmond,    and 
West  New  Brighton. 
Statistics,  standard  forms,  80,  222,  231-235 
Steam,  by-product  of  incineration,  314,  380, 

391-393,  408,  416-418 
Stewart,  Dr.;  fly  breeding,  572 
Stockton-on-Tees,     England;      incinerator, 

341,  360 
Stony  Wold  Sanatorium,  N.  Y.;    hog  farm, 

270-271 
Storage,   at  incineration  plants,    142,   328- 
329,  399,  402,  408,  410 
reduction   plants,    476,   484,   490,   495, 

505,  507-508 
sorting  plants,  292,  295 
See  also  Specifications. 
Street  cleaning,  586-588,  602 
Street  refuse,  chemical  analyses,  590-593 
collection,  cost,  205-206,  596-598 
organization,  587,  602 
pilea.  597-598 


Street   refuse,   collection,  receptacles,  597- 
601 
time,  602 
wagons,  600-601 
disposal,  602-604 
dust,  588-590 

fertilizers,  590-593,  602-603 
incineration,  603-604 
land-fill,  603 

manure,  586,  588,  590-593,  602-603 
materials,  587-599,  604 
pavements,  influence  of.  111,  586-587, 

590-593 
quantities,  45,  589-591,  594-596,  603 

in  European  cities,  593,  596 
in  small  towns,  623 
snow,  596-597,  604 
unit  weights,  46,  590,  593-596 
Street  sweepings,  see  Street  refuse. 
Studebaker  Co.;    wagons,  137-139 
Supplemental    transportation,     see    Trans- 
portation. 
Sweepings,  house  treatment,  95 
Swindlehurst,  J.  Eric;    incinerator,  Coven- 
try, 423-424,  426 
Syracuse,  N.  Y.;  ashes  and  rubbish,  28 
garbage,  28 
reduction,  450,  524,  540 


Tankage,  analyses,  22,  27,  56,  458-459,  500 
contracts,  497-499 
market  prices,  540 

quantities  recovered,  22,  452,  454,  474, 
478 
decrease  in,  42 
Tank  cars,  see  Cars. 
Tarrant  Mfg.  Co.;    can  or  bag  carrier,  600- 

601 
Taunton,  Mass.;    ashes  and  rubbish,  37 

garbage,  37 
Terre  Haute,  Ind.;    garbage  furnace,  516, 

528 
Thackeray,  Charles;   incinerator,  Montreal, 

415-416 
Thiesing,  Dr.;   report,  Charlottenburg,  26 
refuse,  chemical  analysis,  69 
quantities,  76 
sorting,  sanitary  aspects,  310 
Thompson,  George  W.;    incinerator.  West- 
mount,  418 
Thomson,  R.  H.;   report,  collection  and  dis- 
posal, Seattle,  12 
Tiflan  Wagon  Co. ;  wagons,  140-141 
Tin  cans,  presses,  293 
in  refuse,  53 
in  small  towns,  622 
utilization,  293-295,  622 


652 


INDEX 


Toledo,  Ohio;   collection,  91,  106,  217,  221 

garbage,  40 

hog  farm,  269-270 

transportation,  217,  221 
Topeka,  Kans.;  garbage  furnace,  380,  412- 
413 

hog  farm,  259 
Toronto,  Ont.;   collection,  122,  227 

dumps,  249 

engineering,  preliminary  expense,  514 

incinerator,  360,  419,  438-441,  520 

manure,  582 

refuse,  51 

report,  collection  and  disposal,  Hering 
and  Gregory,  548-549,  560-561 

transportation,  216 
Towle,    Harry    F.;     analysis,    tankage   and 

grease,  Chicago,  22 
Trade  refuse,  house  treatment,  95 

materials  recovered,  52 
Trailers,  144,  167-168,  174,  183-186 

used  for  house  collection,  144,  185 
Transfer  stations,  see  Loading  stations. 
Transportation,  104,  166-230 

barges  and  boats,  see  Scows. 

cars,  railroad,   170-171,  200,  208,  216, 
221 
trolley,  168,  172-174,  221 

cost,  167-230 

European  data,  193 

loading  stations,  148,  166-169,  187-193, 
208-210,  221,  241 

motor  trucks,   119-120,   143-151,   174- 
189,  197,  217,  220-221 

railroad,  costs,  200,  221 

scows,  169-170,  193,  213,  241-243 
costs,  169-170,  199-220,  221 

specifications,  191-193 

trolley  cars,  168,  172-174,  199,  221 
costs,  168,  199,  221 
Trenton,  N.  J.;   ashes,  14,  28,  31 

collection,  107,  217,  219,  226,  228 

engineering,  preliminary  expense,  514 

garbage  and  rubbish,  28,  31 

incineration,  551-552 

reduction,  551-552 

report,  collection  and  disposal,  Hering 
and  Gregory,  12,  549-552 

street  refuse,  592 

transportation,  217,  219 
Trolley  cars,  see  Cars. 
Troy,  N.  Y.;  ashes  and  rubbish,  28 

collection,  227 

garbage,  28 

U 
Uniforms  for  men,  106,  151,  621 
United   States  Army  Camps  and   Canton- 
ments;  garbage,  37,  39 


United  States  Army  Camps  and   Canton- 
ments;  incinerators,  415 
sorting,  307 
United  States   Department  of  Commerce; 
uses   for   waste   paper,   rags,   etc., 
296-297 
United  States  Food  Administration;   educa- 
tional work,  39-41 
food  conservation,  39-41 
garbage  in  army  camps,     37-41,  307 
"Garbage  Utilization"  quoted,  272 
hog  feeding,  26,  258 

conference  of  experts,  278-281 
Unit  weights,  13-14,  17-18,  27,  33,  37-38, 
44-46,  53,  70 
factors  influencing,  42,  44—46 
service,  effect  on,  42 
statistics,  standard  form,  232 
See  also  under  names  of  materials. 
Utica,  N.  Y.;   hog  farm,  259 
trailers,  167 
transportation,  167,  180 


Valuations,  reduction  plants,  541-545 
Vancouver,  B.  C;   collection,  226 

incinerator,  317,  340,  342,  360,  419,  517, 
521,  529 
Ventilation,    incineration    plants,    367-369, 
399 
reduction  plants,  461,  504,  507 
Very,  Edward,  D.;    collection,  eflSciency  of 
wagons,  119 
garbage,  chemical  analysis,  New  York, 
27 
fermentation,  8 
quantities,  New  York,  27 
seasonal  variation,  29 
Villages,  see  Small  towns. 
Vincennes,  Ind. ;  reduction,  451 
Virus,  definition,  261-262 
Voelcker,  Dr.  J.  A.;   manure  analyses,  571 
Volatile  matter,  determination,  66 

See  also  Chemical  analyses. 
Volume  of  waste  materials,  see  Quantities. 

W 

Wagons,  108-165,  182,  185 
attendants,  147 

bodies,  134,  136-137,  140,  210- .211 
capacity,  108,  127,  131,  148,  208,  211, 

214 
cleaning,  108,  142-143 
covering,  134-136,  139-141,  165,  214 
disinfection,  114 
dumping,  137-142,  246 
loading  height,  132-133 


INDEX 


653 


Wagons,  night-soil,  606-608 
number  required,  123-132 
routing,  156-158,  165,  216-217 
size,  see  Capacity, 
for  small  towns,  620-621 
statistics,  standard  form,  234 
street  refuse,  600-601 
types    used   in   some   American   cities, 
147-148 
in  some  European  cities,  149 
wheel  base,  133-134 
See  also  Carts;  and  Motor  trucks. 
War,  influence  on  costs,  3,  5,  40-41,  195 
disposal,  558 

qualities  of  wastes,  3,  40-41 
quantities  of  garbage,  37,  39—43 
grease  in  garbage,  41 
refuse,  3,  37,  39-40,  42 
Waring,  Col.  George  E.,  Jr.;   report,  collec- 
tion and  disposal.  New  York,  12 
sorting  plant.  New  York,  299-300 
street  cleaning,  New  York,  587 
Washington,  D.  C;  ashes,  14,  28,  62 
ashes  and  rubbish,  28 
cinders,  23,  62 
collection,  91,  93,   106,   119,   121,  213, 

215,  225,  228-230 
dead  animals,  613 
dust,  23,  62 

garbage,  14,  22-23,  28,  34,  40,  61-62 
grease,  22,  32,  457,  497-500 
manure,  581-582 
reduction,  451,  496-499,  540 
report,  collection  and  disposal,  Osborn, 

18 
rubbish,  14,  23,  28,  48-49,  62 
sorting  plant,  306 
street  refuse,  592-593 
tankage,  497-500 
transportation,  180 
Waterbury    Committee;      collection,     cost, 

203-204 
Watford,   England;     incinerator,   327,   340, 
342,  344-347,  419-420 
refuse,  70 
Watson,  George;    incinerators,  cost,  341 

refuse  in  English  cities,  composition,  27 
quantities,  27,  42 
Weights,  see  Quantities,  and  Unit  weights. 
Welle,  Chester  H.;    fly  germicides,  575 
Wells,     Raymond;      inventor     of    Cobwell 

process,  452 
Welton,  B.  F. ;   refuse,  calorimeter  test  and 
chemical     analysis.      West      New 
Brighton,  61 
Westmount,  Que.;  collection,  228 

incinerator,  314,  324,  327,  342-343,  345, 
347,  355-357,  360,  369-372,  394, 
416-418,  515,  517,  529-531 


West  New  Brighton,  N.  Y.;   ashes,  31,  62 
ashes  and  rubbish,  17 
collection,  106,  227 
garbage,  17,  31,  62 

incinerator,  60,  317,  324,  327,  340,  346, 

355,  357-358,  360,  363,     366-367, 

369-371,  373,  388,  390,  397,  399- 

401,  515,  517-518,  529-530,  532 

refuse,  34,  60-62 

report,  collection  and  disposal,  Fether- 

ston,  14 
rubbish,  31,  62 
street  refuse,  601 
See  also  Borough  of  Richmond. 
Weston,     G.;      refuse,     physical     analysis, 

London-Paddington,  79 
Weston,    R.    S.;     hog    farm.     Stony    Wold 

Sanatorium,  270-271 
Whiley,   Henry;    refuse,   physical  analysis, 

Manchester,  79 
Whinery,  Samuel,  see  Parsons,  Hering,  and 

Whinery. 
Wiesbaden,    Germany;      incinerator,    336- 
337,  342,  346 
refuse,  70,  78 
Wilkes-Barre,  Pa.;    transporation,  180 
Wilmington,  Del.;   ashes  and  rubbish,  28 

garbage,  28 
Winnetka,  111.;  ashes,  33 

collection  and  disposal,  629-632 
garbage,  33 
hog  farm,  283-284 
rules  and  regulations,  102 
rubbish,  33 
Winnipeg,  Man.;  collection,  226,  228,  230 
dead  animals,  613 
manure,  584-585 
night-soil,  606-607,  609 
Wiselogel,  Frederick  G.;   reduction  process, 

451 
Worcester,  Mass.;  burial,  252 

hog  farm,  259,  261-265,  268-270,  281- 

282,  526,  541 
plowing  into  soil,  252-253 
Work,  measure  of,  expressed  as  man-hours, 
5,  44,  112,  165,  222,  513,  555-556 
Wrapping  garbage  in  paper,  44,  46,  82-83  , 
89-91,  625 


Young,  Dr.  G.  B.;   garbage,  treatment  with 

acids,  Chicago,  251-252 
York,  Pa.;  plowing  into  soil,  252 


Zurich,  Switzerland;    collection,  161 
incinerator,  328,  342,  345,  554 
refuse,  70 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


0037559010 


